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 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 

“consensus” ...

Freedom of information, my okole... 

by Willis Eschenbach

People seem to be missing the real issue in the CRU emails. Gavin 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 trails. 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 very 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 

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMA... Page 1 of 42

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
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 interest 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 elsewhere to obtain the raw station data 

from Phil Jones at the CRU. We wanted the data that was used to 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 researchers involved such as Gavin Schmidt 

and Michael Mann that clearly indicate that they think they are authentic.

The story actually starts with Warwick Hughes, a climate researcher 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 some 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 anomalies in the TAR Fig 2.9 

global maps. I even sent a gif file map showing the grid cells barren 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 larger 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 stations, 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 what boxes you 

are referring to. The interpolation procedure cannot produce larger anomalies 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 different matter. Trends 

say in Fig 2.9 for the 1976-99 period require 16 years to have data and at least 10 months 

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMA... Page 2 of 42

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
in each year. It is conceivable that at there are 24 years in this 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 larger 

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 has happened and 

answer (1). As for (2) and (3) we compared all stations with neighbours and these two 

stations did not have problems when the work was done (around 1985/6). I am not around 

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 compared 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 Warwick asked Phil 

for the dataset that was used to create the CRU temperature record. 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:

1. A scientist makes claims, and reveals the data and methods he used to come to his conclusions.

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.

3. If the claims cannot be replicated, the claim is adjudged to be false.

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 adversarial 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 the preparation of the 

HadCRUT3 global temperature average, and the raw data for those stations. I cannot find 

it anywhere on the web. The lead author for the temperature average is 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 Freedom of Information act request

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMA... Page 3 of 42

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
Now at this point, let me diverge to what was happening at CRU during this 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 Sarah). [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 we 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 along. I 

think it is supposed to mainly apply to issues of personal information – references 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 was 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 employed by UEA. I guess 

she could claim that she had only written one tenth of the code and release every tenth 

line. 

... 

Tom

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

Phil to Tom

Tom, 

... 

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

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
As for FOIA Sarah isn’t technically employed by UEA and she will likely 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 them. 

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 everything 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 years. 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 to enquiries 

within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.

We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley 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. IPR should 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 ... along 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 careful in the future 

what gets put there. Scott really screwed up big time when he established 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 intellectual property rights issues, so it 

isn’t clear how these sorts of things will play out ultimately in the U.S.... 

mike

Next, from February 05. Jones to Mann, cc to Hughes and Bradley (co-authors of the “hockeystick” 

study)

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMA... Page 5 of 42

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
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 station temperature data. 

Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information 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 February 10, 2007, I received my reply 

from Mr. Dave Palmer of CRU:

Dear Mr. Eschenbach

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 – INFORMATION REQUEST (FOI_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 within 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 dataset, 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 Dynamics 

Division (CGD) page of the Earth and Sun Systems Laboratory (ESSL) at 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 Climate 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 problems).

They both have a lot more data than the CRU have (in simple station number 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.

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMA... Page 6 of 42

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
In accordance with S. 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 this letter 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 information 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]“, this 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 refused to provide a list of the 

sites used for his work, and as such, it cannot be replicated. Replication 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 “appears” 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 that 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?

Rather than immediately appealing this ruling (with the consequent negative 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 available. This is quite important, 

as there are significant differences between the versions of each 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 

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

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
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 these sites.

The remaining 2% of data that is not in the websites consists of data 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 pass on the raw 

station data, but the NMSs concerned are happy for us to use the data in our gridding, and 

these station data are included in our gridded products, which are available from the CRU 

web site. These NMS-supplied data may only form a very small percentage of the 

database, but we have to respect their wishes and therefore this information would be 

exempt from disclosure under FOIA pursuant to s.41. The World Meteorological 

Organization has a list of all NMSs.

That didn’t help one bit. Without knowing which data was used, it was meaningless. They’ve tried 

s.21, they’ve tried s.41, neither exemption applies. So the next day, I replied:

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 prepare 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 available. This is quite important, 

as there are significant differences between the versions of each 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 possible 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 simple list of the sites and 

where each site’s data is located. Pointing at two huge piles of data 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 temperature 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.

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMA... Page 8 of 42

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
Best regards,

I received another letter, saying that they could not identify the locations 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 started.

I had originally asked for the raw station data used to produce the HadCRUT3 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 requested information. 

Thus, the original reason for refusing to provide station data for HadCRUT3 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 this 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 will suffice.

The HadCRUT3 dataset is one of the fundamental datasets in the current climate 

discussion. As such, it is vitally important that it can be peer reviewed 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 “CODE 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 – INFORMATION 

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 dataset” 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 available. This is quite 

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMA... Page 9 of 42

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
important, as there are significant differences between the versions 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 the 

location of the source data (NCAR, GHCN, or National Met Service)”,

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 information you described 

in your note of 14 April. Firstly, we do not have a list consisting solely 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 create such a list we would 

not be able to link the sites with sources of data. The station database 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 scientists in each 

reporting country.

In short, we simply don’t have what you are requesting. The only true source would be 

the NMS for each reporting country. We can, however, send a list of all 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 internal 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 University of East Anglia

I loved the story line in this one “we do not have a list consisting solely 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 (FOI_07-

04)

Dear Mr Eschenbach

Following David Palmer’s letter of 27th April 2007 to you regarding your dissatisfaction 

with our response to your FOI request of 25th January 2007, I have undertaken a 

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI... Page 10 of 42

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
thorough review of the contents of our file and have spoken with both Mr. Palmer 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 possible for 

us to do so.

I confirm that we are able to make available on the Climatic Research 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 stations 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 available on the NCAR and 

GHCN websites and gridded data are available on the Climatic Research Unit website. If 

these data are insufficient for your requirements, you will need to contact the NMS for 

the country in which the station is located to obtain the information you require.

I hope you are able to accept this response. We have contacted the Information 

Commissioner’s Office in relation to this matter and their advice 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 circling the wagons ... what 

follows are their internal discussions about a series of FOI requests 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 requests 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 to 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 legal, and it definitely isn’t 

ethical.

I note that they are circling the wagons in Australia as well ...

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI... Page 11 of 42

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
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 MCINTYRE 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 seems an attempt to 

be nice to me, 

and somehow split up the original author team. I do now wish I’d never sent them 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 releasing a list of 

the stations we use – just a list, no code and no data. Have agreed to 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 take the pressure off. Thanks, Phil.

Jones to Bradley and Amman, 5/9/08 (1210341221):

Mike, Ray, Caspar,

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI... Page 12 of 42

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
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 all emails Keith and 

Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we’ve found a way around this.

Finding ways around FOI requests seems to be a popular sport. This is in reference to Steve trying to 

get the review comments to Chapter 6 of the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

Next, here’s the brilliant way that they found around the FOIA, a bombshell 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 will 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 letters up. There are 

three threads – two beginning with Fortress and a third later one. Worth 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 all 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 obtain 

useful information, then we may be able to decline all related requests without spending 

ages on considering 

them. Worth looking out for evidence of such an organised campaign.

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI... Page 13 of 42

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
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 Reading. 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 between 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 hold relevant 

info the IPCC is not part our remit (mission statement, aims etc) 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 them 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 and unreasonable. 

Steven McIntyre provides absolutely no scientific justification or explanation for such 

requests. I believe that McIntyre is pursuing a calculated strategy to divert my attention 

and focus away from research. As the recent experiences of Mike Mann and Phil Jones 

have shown, this request is the thin edge of wedge. It will be followed by further requests 

for computer programs, additional material and explanations, etc., etc.

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 unwilling 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 rather than the Douglass 

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI... Page 14 of 42

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
et al. IJoC paper which we criticized. As you know, Douglass et 

al. relied on a seriously flawed statistical test, and reached 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 understanding 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 without 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 climate science. I 

am unwilling to submit to this McCarthy-style investigation of my scientific 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 correspondence, etc. I 

feel very strongly about these issues. We should not be coerced by the scientific 

equivalent of a playground bully.

I will be consulting LLNL’s Legal Affairs Office in order to determine 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 immediate 

superior at PCMDI (Dave Bader), to Anjuli Bamzai at DOE headquarters, 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 that the tone of 

this letter is so formal, Tom. Unfortunately, after today’s events, 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 that 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 

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI... Page 15 of 42

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
requested. But had I acceded to McIntyre’s initial request for climate model data, I’m 

convinced (based on the past experiences of Mike Mann, Phil, and Gavin) that I would 

have spent years of my scientific career dealing with demands for further 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 written: “You 

see – he’s guilty as charged!” on his website.

You and I have spent over a decade of our scientific careers on the MSU 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 Douglass, 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 Christy, 

Douglass, and Singer. And I certainly don’t want to spend years of my life interacting 

with the likes of Steven McIntyre.

I hope LLNL management will provide me with their full support. If they 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 the 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 doing 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 Environmental 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 appeals. The VC is 

also 

aware of what is going on – at least for one of the requests, but probably 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 first 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 Canadian, saying that the email 

maligned his scientific credibility with his peers!

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI... Page 16 of 42

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
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 different 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 paleo data. Each 

request generally leads to more – to explain what we’ve put up. Every time, so far, that 

hasn’t led to anything being added – instead just statements saying read what 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 manuals.

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 grants, 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 start on 

another coming out in The Holocene early next year. Gavin and Mike are on this 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 Chief Librarian, were so 

unsupportive. Took a couple of half hour sessions, but at the end of that, rather than being a 

representative of the FOI process, they were functioning as the personal 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 entirely 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 Act 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 been 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, so 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 Sir 

Humphrey here! McIntyre often gets others to do the requesting, but requests 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 latter 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/

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI... Page 17 of 42

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
The paleo data requests have all been to Keith, and here Tim and Keith reply. The recent 

couple have come from McIntyre but there have been at least two others from Holland. 

So since Feb 2007, CRU is in double figures. We never get any thanks for putting things 

up – only abuse and threats. The latest lot is up in the last 3-4 threads on CA.

I got this email over the weekend – see end of this email. This relates 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 that 

DEFRA receive Parliamentary Questions from MPs to answer. One 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 grants based on 

open competition. DEFRA’s system also told them there were no awards to CRU, as 

when we do get something it is down as UEA!

I’ve occasionally checked DEFRA responses to FOI requests – all from Holland.

Cheers 

Phil

Since he and Mann and the others have already deleted their emails, looks like David Palmer was a bit 

too late with his excellent advice ... however, I did get a “Mentioned In 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 grasping 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 refused 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 University, 6 Jan 09 (1231257056):

Cc: “David C. Bader”, Bill Goldstein, Pat Berge, Cherry Murray, George Miller, Anjuli 

Bamzai, Tomas Diaz De La Rubia, Doug Rotman, Peter Thorne, 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

“Thanks” Ben for this, hi all and happy new year. I had a similar experience– but not 

FOIA since we at Climatic Change are a private institution- -with Stephen McIntyre 

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI... Page 18 of 42

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
demanding that I have the Mann et al cohort publish all their computer codes 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 information on 

their data sources and methods so others who are scientifically capable 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 have 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 consumption 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 years 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 expedition to find minor 

glitches or unexplained bits of code–which exist in nearly all our kinds of complex 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 proceed.

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 “evidentiary value in 

public policy”–what you resort to when you can’t win the intellectual battle scientifically 

at IPCC or NAS.

Good luck with this, and expect more of it as we get closer to international 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 ... perhaps because he is 

saying don’t follow the spirit of the law, do as little as you possibly 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 reveal 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. Santer 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 various 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. Anything more is harassment 

... but anything less is scientific obstruction.

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI... Page 19 of 42

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
As I said, the issue is not Trenberth or scientists talking smack. 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 “consensus” ...

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 claim that his intent is legitimate 

peer review is rather humorous. =)

Speaking from a completely moral standpoint, and ignoring the information office’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 very 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 published on other blogs (e.g. 

here ) but I’m re-publishing it because Willis actually sent it to me first and the events all [...]

Reply

18 12 2009 

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI... Page 20 of 42

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
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 Project at Yale Law School

(19:00:46) : 

[...] in Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, in particular those 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 [Climate Audit] and elsewhere 

to obtain the raw station data from Phil Jones at the CRU... (Willis 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 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 with scientists 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 against 

Eschenbach?

Ironically, the idea of Jones wanting to “deal with scientists rather than boys” sounds quite 

childish to me.

Reply

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI... Page 21 of 42

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
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 with 

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 PART OF EVERY 

SCIENTIST’S JOB DESCRIPTION. Yes, Jones would have been very happy not to deal with 

people asking for some kind of scientific support for his claims ... but that’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 actually 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 Controversies - Democrats, 

Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, 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 Scandal « 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) Evasion, The Unbearable 

Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE, November 24, 2009 David Derbyshire, Scientists in [...]

Reply

1 12 2009 

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI... Page 22 of 42

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
Victoria Stodden (04:15:56) : 

[...] in Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, in particular those 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 possible physical changes in the 

condition of Earth, and more notice taken of possible biological and chemical 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, especially 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, and Vicky Pope – 

whom I have known since she was but a gleam in her father’s eye – thinks so, there may well 

be a much more immediate and universal peril confronting us. More to do with 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 (with 

disclaimer) 24 US and one European scientist attended. (Undersea Medical Society Inc, 9650 

Rockville Pike,Bethesda, Maryland, 20014, USA). Page 10-3 possible effects on enzyme 

systems which are pH dependant ? Pages 10-6 to 10-13 Malignancies reference 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 large chemical and 

physiological impact. See 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-acid-ocean-the-other-problem-withcosub2sub-emission/

Re possible impacts with Virus proliferation due to CO2 induced increased 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) : 

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI... Page 23 of 42

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
Virus’s don’t replicate on their own – nor do they replicate in the atmosphere. 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 incredibly 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 tubes 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 absurd 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 gets 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 can NEVER 

extrapolate in vitro (out of the body, test tube, etc) results with in 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 levels 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 change. There are a 

million different things that would interact and work to negate any pH changes. I’m quite 

certain that its far too complex for us to even accurately describe, let alone assume that there’s 

some linear or direct link between increased CO2 and atmospheric acidification. 

Remember one of the key rules of thumb in science: Correlation is NOT causation. If it were, 

then all we’d have to do to cut the human suicide rate in half would be make 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 commit suicide as people who 

drank less than 2 cups. There are all sorts of other, probably even better, examples of 

correlations that are pretty clearly not indicative of any real tie 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 more sense. Why? Because as 

temperatures rise, the oceans will off gas more CO2. Reconstructions 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 temperatures in the past turn around and 

drop, even into ice ages? What, historically, would have allowed temperatures to drop during 

high CO2 levels? Or, another scenario, what histrorically would have caused CO2 levels to 

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI... Page 24 of 42

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
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 research and so 

on. I don’t think that even includes the $6 or $7 Billion given to one of the major car companies 

this year to retool to be CO2 and green friendly, and somewhat lower sums 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 agricultural products 

diverted to bio-fuels – which, as it turns out, if you actually calculate 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 they are today – much 

of our evolution was under higher CO2 levels. Current day plants grown in greenhouses grow 

far better when they increase the CO2 levels up tp 1000 ppm – above that they 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, far higher levels than we are 

in today, in terms of biological organisms. Which makes sense, considering 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 agriculture, 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 move environmentalism 

and themselves into a position of world power and global governance. You can easily find this 

information if you just research the foundation of these groups and how the IPCC works. Nonscientists write the summaries and often significantly change what the 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% information 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...

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI... Page 25 of 42

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
This post was mentioned on Twitter by calamitology: Climate science – 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 data 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 rules, smarter than 

the rest of us and snootily beyond our reach. Anyone who refuses to share data paid for by the 

taxpayers should go to jail.

Reply

28 11 2009 

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion | Global Warming 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 Information 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 repeated (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 world.

Now you need to go to Copenhagen and tell those idiots the truth.

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI... Page 26 of 42

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
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 (guardati 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 domain already since the 

politicians are rushing to get global taxation in place. It is amazing 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-offoi-evasion/ [...]

Reply

27 11 2009 

FM newswire for 27 November, hot articles for your morning reading « Fabius Maximus

(00:03:28) : 

[...] “Freedom of information, my okole...“, Willis Eschenbach, Climate 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. [...]

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI... Page 27 of 42

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
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 the FOIA and how they 

could protect their research from it.

Reply

26 11 2009 

ClimateGate: Had It Been For AGW Believers, Enron Would Still 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 Anglia, 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 the finished products 

that you reference above.

w.

Reply

26 11 2009 

Steve Netwriter (05:41:48) : 

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI... Page 28 of 42

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
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 published on other blogs (e.g. 

here ) but I’m re-publishing it because Willis actually sent it to me first and the events all [...]

Reply

26 11 2009 

WELCOME TO THE CLIMATEGATE GATEWAY!!! « Oldhardhead's Weblog

(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. Eschenbach?

Reply

26 11 2009 

Hacked Emails from GW Advocacy Group; "Hide the Decline" - Politics and Other 

Controversies - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, 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) : 

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI... Page 29 of 42

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
Well, someone sent me a quote from Professor Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice Chancellor for 

Research and Knowledge Transfer of the EAU. He said:

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 piece of legislation.

Ooooh, I am ashamed to confess it, but I said bad words and forbidden epithets, it angrified my 

blood immensely. Now they’ve gone and done it. I expect crooks to be crooks, that’s no 

surprise, I’m not angry at Jones et. al. As long as there is a system, 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 piece 

of legislation.”

If you believe this, I encourage you to read my account of my experience with 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 future.

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 Commissioner)

CC: Editor, Times of London 

Editor, New York Times 

Editor, Daily Mail (UK) 

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI... Page 30 of 42

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
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 Practices), 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 

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI... Page 31 of 42

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
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

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI... Page 32 of 42

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
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. Jones 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 scientist, merely anecdote.

Even if your claim were correct, and what we are talking about were 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) : 

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI... Page 33 of 42

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
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.

No, this is high school stuff, you have to independently reproduce the data, which takes work 

but is obviously much more powerful than your proposal to look over the original scientist’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 would 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 measurements?

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 compile 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 results, 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 their 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 models properly implement 

good science. All parameters need to be justified, all results validated.

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI... Page 34 of 42

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
we need a serious program to collect new data, review it, make adjsutments 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 validated 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 subject 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 to 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 defending 

themselves in court and before administrative panels and academic disciplinary 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 environment. 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 YEAR journal of a CRU 

programmer describing everything he tried with the data and models in an attempt to reproduce 

existing results CRU had published. Comments in the file make it clear that “HARRY” tried 

FOR THREE YEARS to recreate CRU’s published results AND FAILED.

Do you see the REAL significance of this because it is absolutely fatal to the credibility of 

anything CRU has produced. 

What we have here is a documented THREE year effort by a CRU programmer, who had 

access to all the data, access to all the code, access to all 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 there is no point 

anyone else even trying — CRU themselves have proven it’s a waste of time 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.

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI... Page 35 of 42

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
Besides, the absolutly sorry state of affairs in the data handling and software managment the 

HARRY_READ_ME.txt reveals, the utter and total mess of CRU data and software this 

document reveals is WHY CRU has not released its data and model software.

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_READ_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 were “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 scientific 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 network of trust and 

on replication rather than auditing) and charitably inferred a scientific 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 academic careers 

are made and lost in the interpretation of seemingly innocuous text, and anyway if 

they spoke for themselves you wouldn’t have to annotate them in the self-serving 

way that you do.

Absolutely not. That’s the reason I continued. Re-read my responses to CRU.

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.

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI... Page 36 of 42

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
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 data from 

there” is no help in trying to find out if CRU has done their work accurately.

I also pointed out:

You are making the rather curious claim that because the data “appears” 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 that 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 HadCRUT3 

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 requested 

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 they 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 available 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 sites that Dr. Jones and his 

team used.

Exactly what I said, “an actual list of the sites that Dr. Jones 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) : 

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI... Page 37 of 42

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
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 important 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 them 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-real-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 that 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 process 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;

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI... Page 38 of 42

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
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 requests at CRU posted at 

Maurice’s. (The history includes reactions of Jones group when FOIA came 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

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

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications 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, Pearce, 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 Event

• 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

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

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
greenhouse effect HadCRUT History Humor IPCC Policy Politics

Science Skepticism Sun Twitter Warming Younger Dryas

Tags

Al Gore Anthony Watts arctic australiaBBCBBC 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, Pearce, 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

•

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI... Page 41 of 42

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010
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 bargain! - #oilpocalypse #BP

20 hours ago

•

Why does the BBC switch to panic mode whenever they should be adding direct links 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. 

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

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ 7/27/2010