thefordprefect
Posted Nov 24, 2010 at 9:22 PM
Permalink
ReplyKeep going McIntyre,
You may get your man one day. But you have not disproved the CRUTEM data which surely must be what an audit site is about (yes, I know it is your site and you can editorialise on what you like!)
The world may or may not be heading for thermal disaster and what are you (generic) doing belly-aching about possible inconsequential point of order. Trying to discredit the opposition by going for personalities and not their data.
What the world needs is proof that AGW is fact or fiction. The world will not be helped by discrediting a small UK University and one of its incumbents.
You may get great satisfaction by discrediting another human and a University who refused your request (validly) for data. But exactly how is this going to advance the science?
Take a look at WUWT they are now going after a blurred slide used as a background to a “corporate” photo (Dr. Ray Bradley’s amazing photo).
Watts does not seem to understand that “Present” means 1950 in most ice core parlance.
P A T H E T I C!
thefordprefect
Posted Nov 25, 2010 at 7:05 PM
Permalink
ReplyYour comment is awaiting moderation.
From a letter from various high profile US researchers to the Muir Russel enquiry:
Dear Sir Muir,
After reading the submissions posted on the Independent Climate Change Email Review’s website – and seeing some of our own submissions delayed or redacted – we are writing to express some serious concerns, and to provide specific suggestions. We recognize the complexity and difficulty of the task you have undertaken, and offer these views in the hope that you will find them helpful.
Although the ICCER has not yet issued any substantive findings, many submissions to the Review panel questioned its competence, impartiality and integrity. Stephen McIntyre’s submission, for example, attacks the ICCER’s statement of Issues for Examination as displaying a “frequent and almost embarrassing tendency to miss the point”, dismisses the ICCER’s work plan as “totally unsatisfactory” (mainly for not interviewing either McIntyre or his collaborator Ross McKitrick), asserts that two current ICCER members should be disqualified from service, and accuses ICCER members of making “misleading or untrue statements” and “misrepresentations”.
As climate scientists, we are, regrettably, all too familiar with these tactics. The unfortunate reality is that, to research climate issues today – at least if one’s research findings tend to support human-caused climate change – means to live and work in an environment of constant accusations of fraud, calls for investigations (or for criminal prosecutions), demands for access to every draft, every intermediate calculation, and every email exchanged with colleagues, daily hate mail and threats, and attempts to pressure the institutions that employ us and fund our research. Through experience, we have learned that there is no review of climate scientists’ work that isn’t deemed a “whitewash” by climate change contrarians; there is no casual remark that can’t be seized upon, blown out of proportion and distorted; and there is no person whose character can’t be assassinated, no matter how careful and honest their research.
[...]
The Shelby Amendment provoked an uproar in the scientific community. There was widespread concern that if it were interpreted too broadly, the law would interfere with scientists’ ability to carry out their research. Such concerns were expressed in Congressional testimony by Dr. Bruce Alberts, (who was at the time the President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences). Dr. Alberts warned that, unless the new standards were appropriately limited, they would have a “chilling effect” on scientific collaboration, and would “be used by various special interest groups to harass researchers doing research that these interest groups would like to stop”. The American Association for the Advancement of Science voiced similar concerns to OMB, and noted that overly broad disclosure requirements would have “serious unintended consequences for scientists, their institutions, federal funding agencies, and the wider public”.
Ultimately, after receiving more than 12,000 comments, OMB issued guidelines (reported at 65 Fed. Reg. 14406) that balance the public’s interest in disclosure against scientists’ need for confidentiality and protection from harassment. Under the guidelines, when federally funded, published research is used in developing agency action that has the force and effect of law, “research data” relating to the published findings are available under FOIA. “Research data” is defined as “the recorded factual material commonly accepted in the scientific community as necessary to validate research findings …”. Expressly excluded from the definition of “research data”, however – and therefore protected from disclosure – are “preliminary analyses, drafts of scientific papers, plans for future research, peer reviews, or communications with colleagues”.
(Emphasis added.)
We strongly believe that CRU and other research institutions should operate under similar guidelines, and hope that the ICCER will be able to make such a recommendation. Specifically, when CRU publishes research, the “research data” (see above for definition) should be made available. Other information, however – including preliminary analyses, drafts of scientific papers, plans for future research, peer reviews, or communications with colleagues – should be expressly protected from disclosure. These procedures would allow anyone who wished to test published research findings to do so, while affording some measure of badly needed protection from harassment to scientists. They would also avoid placing burdens on scientists at CRU (and elsewhere in the U.K.) that their colleagues in the U.S. Federal Government do not have to bear.
see also:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg_a110-finalnotice
http://www.oria.cornell.edu/documents/FOIA.pdf
http://guides.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/content.php?pid=125160
http://nccam.nih.gov/news/events/grants08/slides16.htm
So there we have it.
The US will not make emails private or not available to FOIers
So NONE of the Emails should be made available
So there would be NO reason for Jones etc to request destruction.
So The last clag of entries in this blog are meaningless if the US FOI were followed.
So I repeat P A T H E T I C !
thefordprefect
Posted Nov 26, 2010 at 2:03 PM
Permalink
Reply
If you read what I posted here:
http://climateaudit.org/2010/11/24/uea-refuses-08-31-once-again/#comment-246036
You will understand the US emails do not fall under FOI act.
In my opinion you should be able to
- request Briffa to US (UK foi is confused being in its infancy)
but not
- US to Briffa. These emails are owned by US citizens and therefore do not fall under FOI
This has the added implication that even if US emails had been destroyed at the request of Jones, it would not be an illegal act since these Emails could never be subject to an FOI request!!!!!
It is also interesting that some NASA emails have been released. So perhaps NASA have acted illegally in subjecting scientists to this exposure.
Mike
thefordprefect
Posted Nov 27, 2010 at 8:29 AM
Permalink
ReplyYour comment is awaiting moderation.
For Example:
The change that brought some Universities into FOI regulation:
This appropriations law commands OMB to revise Circular A-110 in such a way as to require future such federal grantees to submit their research data to the federal grantor agency so that their data can be processed for potential disclosure in response to FOIA requests made for the data. In short, this new statutory provision overrules the longstanding Supreme Court precedent of Forsham v. Harris, 445 U.S. 169 (1980), which held that data generated and held by private research institutions receiving federal grants were not “agency records” subject to the FOIA and that a grantor agency was not obligated to demand those records in order to respond to any FOIA request for them.
In order to implement this statutory provision, OMB prepared a proposed revision of Circular A-110, … OMB published a final revised version of Circular A-110, which can be found at 64 Fed. Reg. 54,926.
The final revised version of this circular significantly defines the term “research data” to include “the recorded factual material commonly accepted in the scientific community as necessary to validate research findings, but not” such things as trade secrets, commercial information, personnel and medical information, and any “similar information which is protected under law.” Id. at 54,930. It also limits the application of this new provision to “research data relating to published research findings,” id. (emphasis added), which it defines as either “[r]esearch findings [that] are published in a peer-reviewed scientific or technical journal” or that are “publicly and officially cite[d] . . . in support of an agency action that has the force and effect of law.” Id.
Thus, in actual implementation, this statutory provision should apply to only certain types of “research data” as specified by OMB. Further, it applies only to data created under grants “issued after the effective date [November 8, 1999]” of the revised Circular A-110. But for any such data that is requested under the FOIA, the agency must obtain the data from the grantee and then process the FOIA request, except for one major difference pertaining to fees: “The agency may charge the requester a reasonable fee equaling the full incremental cost of obtaining the research data . . . in addition to any fees the agency may assess under the FOIA.” …
http://www.justice.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_XIX_4/page2.htm
(d) (1) In addition, in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for research data relating to published research findings produced under an award that was used by the Federal Government in developing an agency action that has the force and effect of law, the Federal awarding agency shall request, and the recipient shall provide, within a reasonable time, the research data so that they can be made available to the public through the procedures established under the FOIA. If the Federal awarding agency obtains the research data solely in response to a FOIA request, the agency may charge the requester a reasonable fee equaling the full incremental cost of obtaining the research data. …
(2) The following definitions apply for purposes of paragraph (d) of this section:
(i) Research data is defined as the recorded factual material commonly accepted in the scientific community as necessary to validate research findings, but not any of the following: Preliminary analyses, drafts of scientific papers, plans for future research, peer reviews, or communications with colleagues. This “recorded” material excludes physical objects ( e.g. , laboratory samples). Research data also do not include:
(A) Trade secrets, commercial information, materials necessary to be held confidential by a researcher until they are published, or similar information which is protected under law; and
(B) Personnel and medical information and similar information the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, such as information that could be used to identify a particular person in a research study.
(ii) Published is defined as either when:
(A) Research findings are published in a peer-reviewed scientific or technical journal; or
(B) A Federal agency publicly and officially cites the research findings in support of an agency action that has the force and effect of law.
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=443b61b3de4579eab8a69c106b0343a3&rgn=div8&view=text&node=2:1.1.2.9.2.3.11.17&idno=2
So no government grant funded research falls into this category if published before 1999.
Privately funded research is exempt
“communications with colleagues” is specifically exempt
Anthony
WattsHAS
