Enter the Validation Code and click on "download file". Free, no registration required. Took me 4 minutes.
Sorry if you already know all this but I've been amazingly busy recently and haven't been in the groups or keeping up with the news much.
Graham
Others I like ....
"World Climate Report, a concise, hard-hitting and scientifically correct response to the global change reports which gain attention in the literature and popular press. As the nation?s leading publication in this realm, World Climate Report is exhaustively researched, impeccably referenced, and always timely. This popular web log points out the weaknesses and outright fallacies in the science that is being touted as ?proof? of disastrous warming. It?s the perfect antidote against those who argue for proposed changes to the Rio Climate Treaty, such as the Kyoto Protocol, which are aimed at limiting carbon emissions from the United States.
Acclaimed by those on both sides of the global warming debate, World Climate Report has become the definitive and unimpeachable source for what Nature now calls the ?mainstream skeptic? point of view, which is that climate change is a largely overblown issue and that the best expectation is modest change over the next 100 years. WCR is often cited by prominent scientists and lawmakers and is a surprisingly enjoyable read?which may account for its broad appeal."
"04 December 2009
Amateur scientist Willis Eschenbach, who resides in Honiara, Solomon Islands, has studied changes in sea level and coral. His unsuccessful Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain climate data from East Anglia University?s Hadley Climatic Research Unit (CRU) figured in the Climategate scandal described in this month?s Editorial. He described his unsuccessful attempts to receive information in "The People Versus the Climate Research Unit (CRU)," an 11,000-word article that has been published on various blogs. It is presented here without editing and with the permission of the author. Editor
The People Versus the Climate Research Unit (CRU)
by Willis Eschenbach
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 out of which they built the global temperature record. 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 and climate. 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.
People seem to be missing the real issue in the discussion of the hacked CRU climate emails. Gavin Schmidt 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 that he would like people to follow. 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 then attack the claim by (among other things) trying to replicate the first scientist?s work. If they can?t replicate it, it doesn?t stand. So blocking my Freedom of Information request for his data allowed Phil Jones to claim that his temperature record was valid science, even though it has never been scientifically examined.
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.
The recent release of the hacked emails from CRU has provided me with an amazing insight into the attempt by myself, Steve McIntyre, 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 relied on to claim "unprecedented" global warming. This is a chronological account of my attempts to get that vital data released to public view.
A few housekeeping notes first. While we don?t know if all of these emails are valid, the comments of the researchers involved such as Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann clearly indicate that they think the emails are authentic. The emails certainly fit with my experience. I have only included the relevant parts of emails, and indicated where I have snipped text by an ellipsis (...). Numbers of the emails are in parentheses. "Codes" is shorthand for the computer programs used to analyze the data.
CRU is the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (UEA), arguably the top climate research unit in the world. Dr. Phil Jones is the Director of CRU. CA is ClimateAudit, a web site run by Steve McIntyre that audits scientific papers for errors of all types. MM is Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who have authored papers together. Michael Mann is one of the three authors, with Bradley and Hughes, of the now discredited iconic "Hockeystick" paper that was heavily promoted by the UN IPCC. The Hockeystick paper claimed this is the warmest period in six hundred years. The Hockeystick paper was discredited largely through the efforts of Steve McIntyre, so Michael Mann and the others do not like Steve at all. Gavin Schmidt is a climate modeler that runs a web site called RealClimate. This purports to be a scientific blog, but the CRU emails confirm that it is a well-controlled mouthpiece for Michael Mann and others who believe in anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW). RealClimate ruthlessly censors comments and questions, in stark contrast to ClimateAudit, which allows free expression of any scientific questions and ideas. (Although in response to the intense scrutiny caused by the emails, RealClimate immediately started accepting a number of opposing comments for the first time. This is a smart move, as newcomers will be fooled into thinking there is no censorship ? but the emails prove otherwise.)
The IPCC is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. AR4 is the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007). WMO is the World Meteorological Organization, which collates and supplies weather information. FOI or FOIA is the UK Freedom of Information Act.
The story actually starts with Warwick Hughes, an Australian climate researcher who had previously been in cordial contact with Phil Jones. 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 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, usual tone, 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 a good start. Or as they say in the novel "1984", double-plus ungood. Science can only progress if there is a free exchange of scientific data. The scientific model works like this:
- A scientist makes claims, and reveals the data and methods he 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. * 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, that's their job description. This adversarial system is the heart of science. Phil Jones refusing scientific data because someone will attack it is an oxymoron, of course they will attack it. That's science.
When I found out about Phil Jones saying this, I couldn?t believe it. I thought, a scientist can?t do that, can he? He can't refuse to reveal his data. This is science, not hide and seek. I literally didn't think Jones had been quoted correctly. So to find out, I wrote to the University of East Anglia (of which the CRU is a Department) 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 or UEA. So I filed a Freedom of Information act request for the data.
Now at this point, let me diverge from my application to what was happening at CRU before and 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 of 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). ...
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.
...
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. Claim a temporary employee isn't really an employee so they are not covered.
Phil to Tom
Tom,
?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 that FOI will apply, and immediately he starts to plan how he is going to hide from an FOI request. Cite technicalities, claim IPR (Intellectual Property Rights), those are good hiding places.
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. Astounding. And this is before they've even received a single FOI request.
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 (1109021312)
From: Phil Jones:
To: mann
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA [This was in reference to the pressure on Michael Mann to release the "Hockeystick" 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 is ? nobody talks about the Freedom of Information Act ...........
And much more. It comes to 11,000 words total.