December 2009
2 tags
“This tactic [the High Moral Ground] entails overlooking egregious breaches of...”
– liamascorcaigh forgetting the asymmetry.
2 tags
The FOI Myth #2 →
Criticizing, however fairly, an editorial by showing the mootness of two words caracterizing demands as being time-consuming might be overinterpreted in multifarious ways, many of which are eclipsing now the criticism itself.
WatchAtte Korhola - “Climate changes in the European Arctic during the last 2k”
Susann: Here is the quote: "If there are benefits to the email theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts. Governments and institutions need to provide tangible assistance for researchers facing such a burden…" The editorial says the emails “highlight” the experience of “some climate change researchers often in the form of” demands for information under the FOI acts. In other words, the hacked/leaked emails are illustrative of a larger problem for some researchers. They did not limit their commentary to only the emails and only the FOI requests revealed in them. The particular was used to highlight the general. Steve’s focusing only on the FOI requests he submitted as evidence that the claim is a “myth” is ubsubstantiated.
Steve: Susann, I’m sorry to be rude, but your reasoning here as elsewhere is pathetic. Demonstrating that FOI requests from myself and CA readers did not constitute “endless, time-consuming demands for information” under FOI is evidence that their claim is a myth, though it is not proof, since, as others have pointed out, it is possible that others (perhaps even Macavity the Cat) have submitted “endless, time-consuming demands for information” under FOI that I’m unaware of. However, Nature hasn’t provided any evidence of such demands and there is no such evidence in the Climategate Letters. *
Norbert: Steve, you have absolutely no reason to “be rude” here. Your statement is a non-sequitur. Whatever evidence the editorial provides, or doesn’t provide, has nothing to do with the fact itself. Here are just a few other statements in the editorial which are likely without evidence in either the editorial or the emails: “obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse” “That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails” [This is just an unspecified claim that there is evidence.] “First, Earth’s cryosphere is changing as one would expect in a warming climate.” “Third, decades of biological data on blooming dates and the like suggest that spring is arriving earlier each year.” “Denialists often maintain that these changes are just a symptom of natural climate variability.” “But for much crucial information the reality is very different. Researchers are barred from publicly releasing meteorological data from many countries owing to contractual restrictions.” “After all, the pressures the UEA e-mailers experienced may be nothing compared with what will emerge as the United States debates a climate bill next year, and denialists use every means at their disposal to undermine trust in scientists and science.” — In other words, the editorial, like probably most editorials, is full of such sentences without evidence.
“It means using someone else’s specific argument as a platform to make...”
– Someone who knows what coat-racking means
2 tags
“I strongly encourage people to verify things for themselves. I’ve spent many...”
– Steve
“This blog compiles facts that make nuclear energy the clear choice for powering...”
– clear nuclear
ComplexClimate: Climategate or Cancergate? That is... →
3 tags
Climatologists Are Conceiling Data
[Barton Paul Levenson provides a shorter version]
764 It amazes me is the how hard the CRU worked to hide their underlying data.
772 Gavin, understand about organizations protecting a revenue stream. quick question, were the bought data set id’s released to inquirers so they too could purchase them?
777 Significant papers and supporting data should always be in the public domain
823 what...
“Once again, Steve has written an interesting post. But this is another post that...”
– Chris
1 tag
“I request that a copy of the following NOAA records be provided to me: (1) any...”
– Steve, quoted by fordprefect
MartinGAtkins: I profoundly disagree. Your dismissive attitude is uncalled for.
Steve: sorry. Your comments are appreciated and there is no intent of being dismissive. The blog is swamped with OT comments right now – often unintentional. My editing is not infallible. I realize that readers go to trouble to express themselves, but editorially I’m trying to keep threads a little bit focussed – something that the majority of readers want.
“I love when Steve makes posts that address whether a published paper actually...”
– Steve
2 tags
“Thank you, Eric. I will judge you by this reply and not by whom you defend.”
– Fritsch
“As a government (DOD) scientist who has been FOIAed I can assure you that Ben...”
– William Harrison
“I can see the tears in Sir Isaac Newton’s eyes.”
– Bob
Susann: If someone was really truly interested in debunking a myth about the onerous burden faced by some US scientists who have to field FOI requests for data, one might do something like check to see how many US scientists were struggling with FOI requests. Just sayin.
Steve: And maybe Nature could check to se how many US scientists were struggling with FOI requests before making allegations in a leading magazine. Just sayin. Of course, why would anyone expect you to expect Nature to carry out due diligence?
1 tag
Steve: Your mischaracterization of the issues is really quite childish.
“The hijacking of threads is really annoying. I’m about to start asking some...”
– Steve
“Just speculating here, but it might be that they wanted to delete emails on...”
– Susann
Susann: First, whether the email deletion took place has not been proven, nor is it proven that any deletion they might have done was against the FOI laws. It is a possibility. If the email system is backed up, the emails should be retrievable, depending on how they run their system. I won’t take anyone’s word that they broke the law — that is to be determined by official investigation. I want to see what the investigation finds. That issue aside, the issue is whether the FOI officers/ commissioners acted properly in agreeing to deny the request. I don’t know if the CRU has confidentiality agreements with countries that prevents all data from being released — they claim they do, and unless Jones was lying through his teeth, I imagine they do. This would be something easily checked. I would presume the FOI people did check as part of their own due diligence — if not, they will pay the consequences. Do I think there is any legal legitimate reason not to release the data, aside from the confidentiality agreements which may exist? No. Should they have released the data? Yes. Are they playing a game of catchup right now because they did not release the data? Yes. This is a hard lesson to learn, but in a politicized issue like this, gaffe and error and stumble is to be expected.
Steve: CRU was unable to produce relevant confidentiality agreements last summer. In addition, in their November 18 email, they resiled from their July claim that the supposed “confidentiality agreements” included specific clauses preventing distribution to “non-academics”. Given CRU’s inability to produce relevant confidentiality agreements, it is apparent that their FOI officer sent out refusals without carrying out any due diligence to determine that there were confidentiality agreements containing language of the type claimed by Jones. My guess, and it’s only a guess, is that the university FOI officer is not happy about the information that he received from CRU. Before you opine on these matters, why don’t you read the blog posts on the past history of the FOI requests. It’s well documented on the blog.
Susann: People opine all the time here without benefit of evidence or based on flimsy evidence at best. I have read the blog however I don’t have it memorized. You may have documented your experiences with FOI requests, but that’s only half the story. I don’t know what the FOI officers thought or how they interpreted the request and how they developed reasons for refusal. I have worked with FOI officials before on data requests, so I know how our people respond to such requests from the public.
Susann : Clearly Jones was bothered — perturbed, frustrated — I don’t know which verb properly applies — by the requests for data and the possibility of FOI requests, and the FOI requests themselves. Apparently, the FOI officer(s) and commissioner agreed with his reasons so unless he outright lied to both, he has some backing in this.
Steve: the Met Office FOI response is different than CRU
“When I read your post, I read it as an attempt to see if you can find evidence...”
– Susann
“Earlier this year, the Met Office refused an FOI request for station data – a...”
– Steve
“What I would appreciate is that people just come out and state what they really...”
– Susann
1 tag
“Another thing that’s bothered me about the Wegman report. Its official title...”
– cce
“If Steve has become popular enough to have people pay attention to what he says,...”
– RomanM
“Steve: – Ive snipped some untrue and inflammatory allegations. The Met Office...”
– Steve
2 tags
“If climate science falls, it should fall because it is wrong, plain and simple,...”
– Susann
“Steve: Susann, if you wish to discuss Hadley Center, you are welcome to do so,...”
– Steve
“Doubt is our product”
– Brown & Williamson
Global Warming Skepticism 101 « Roy Spencer, Ph.... →
Mediarology →
Episode 1: It's All About Carbon : NPR →
“The world’s largest oil company is continuing to fund lobby groups that...”
– ExxonMobil continuing to fund climate sceptic groups, records show | Environment | guardian.co.uk
3 tags
“C’mon folks. You don’t have to be an AR4 reviewer to ask for the IPCC review...”
– Steve
“So you have to place your questions in an FOI context, where there are legal...”
– Steve
1 tag
“Hey folks, if you think that requesting the review comments is a good idea, you...”
– Steve
1 tag
“The Nobel laureate in Economics, George Stigler, was called to testify in...”
– NW
Pajamas Media » Climategate Computer Codes Are the... →
1 tag
“This is my final input to your idiotic blog.
Anyone who would like to discuss...”
– Donald Rapp
Atmospheric CO2 levels could NOT have changed... →
“In 2003 scientists expressed increased satisfaction and agreement with the IPCC...”
– Climate Feedback: Climate scientists’ views on climate change: a survey
“We can only say that it is “somewhat more likely than not” that the...”
– Motl
1 tag
“I want to report that I think I have solved a major problem in theoretical...”
– Stephen Hawking, losing a bet
1 tag
“I think that I mentioned my own contact with Stigler back in 1962 or so. We...”
– Steve
3 tags
CO2 Hypothesis
George : I am a cynical engineering type, much oriented towards results and not much concerned about the question of the goodness, integrity, honesty, dishonesty, redemption, or any other metaphysical aspects of climate scientists. What matters to low level schmuks like me most, is an answer to the question: is the CO2 global warming hypothesis correct or not?
Steve: I’ve asked proponents for a few years now to provide an engineering quality derivation showing how doubled CO2 leads to a big problem. Thus far, I haven’t been able to get anyone to give me such a reference. Gerry North, a prominent climate scientist, has made fun of me for asking such a question, but maybe you’d have better luck with him than me. Unlike many readers, I do not presume that such a derivation is impossible or even that it doesn’t exist. If you can locate one, please bring it to my attention.