March 6, 2010 
I’m trying to compile a list of the following:
- everything Steve McIntyre has asked for over the years
- what was publicly available
- where
- when
- what he has been told by CRU/Hadley/NOAA/NASA, and
- what FOI responses have been, and
- his comments on each either on his blog or elsewhere.
To that end, if you know the answer to any of these and/or can provide links to specific posts or other relevant evidence, please provide in comments. There’s material everywhere on CA and I am trying to amalgamate it in one document. I have started to collect the FOI requests and responses, but if anyone is so inclined, I’d be very pleased for the assistance and will credit in anything I post or write.
The Policy Lass 
Susann, this is a huge undertaken. It would be easier if you were to set up a wiki somewhere and other people could help with the project. Kind of bullet point items and then you can write your analysis later. If you have a Wikipedia account, you could set it up in a sandbox there – unless that violates one of their rules I don’t know about. Just an idea.
Lucia’s started a similar undertaking on the “March of the Thermometers”.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/timeline-of-the-march-of-the-thermometers-meme/
I’d suggest that the best way to start a project like this would be to get a long roll of paper and create a timeline, then add details on Post-It notes as each bit of info comes in.
Yes, I was reading Lucia’s blog yesterday and think something similar would be a good idea. I don’t think I want to go via Wiki because I would lose control and this is for my own analysis. I just think it would be a good document or set of documents to have because there is so much out there and so much confusion, if we take the Swedish letters to Jones as an example. I might just set up a separate page on this blog for it. I will be doing a lot of reading over at CA for the next while but if you come across a good link, just post it in the comments and I’ll take it from there. It all starts with the hockey stick, right? McI wanted Mann’s data, which he ultimately got. The rest is history.
I only suggest doing it on paper simply because you can step back and take in the whole picture. It’s easier to get the overall context, much like a storyboard’s purpose in film, and you can scribble notes as something comes to mind.
Even the REALCLIMATE Wiki doesn’t appear to have a page for McIntyre :
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=RC_Wiki
Whatever you come up with (and wherever), sounds like it could be a very valuable resource in helping to expose the disinformation of the anti-AGW crowd.
Paper rocks, as J mentioned. For a virtual endeavour, a simple Tumblr scraplog could do: click on my name for an example. For real network analysis, there are tools like Freemind, for which there are online repositories.
I like this idea of compiling stuff, and would suggest that either you move every comment so far elsewhere, as they are not related to gathering data, or update every bits of relevant info in the main post.
The latter seems better, as it keeps the discussion about the topic near the related post. It is also more open, as trying to shut down discussions about topics (and even pretending they are OT) is a very capricious way to open up debates.
“I don’t think I want to go via Wiki because I would lose control and this is for my own analysis.”
Oh, so you want to control the facts? I thought you wanted to control the analysis. Yes, if you want to control which facts are analyzed, then avoid wiki for certain. If you don’t, I am certain to put some facts up that you don’t want people to know about – facts you don’t want clouding up your analysis.
“Facts” like the Swedes don’t subject their data to a confidentiality agreement?
Shewonk is doing the right thing. She wants real facts, not Ron facts.
Stoat has a topic going on the Sweden meme.
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/03/weird_stuff_from_the_swedes.php
Lubos Motl’s poisoning the well there. Must have got bored at the Guardian.
Here’s the main part of my post at CA (still in moderation).
________________________________________________________________
The license on Dataserier 1961-2008 from SMHI clearly states that data may not be distributed (3.2)
November 30th 2009
Request made by UEA to make data more widely available.
December 21st 2009
Request rejected.
“Given the information that the version of the data from the SMHI stations that you hold are likely to differ from the data we hold, SMHI do not want the data to be released on your web site.”
March 1st 2010
Parliamentary hearing.
March 4th 2010
Clarification by SMHI.
“We understand now that our response to your request forwarded by UK MetOffice 30 November 2009 may have been misinterpreted, maybe due to the fact that the formulations may have been a bit harsh.”
Jones isn’t psychic. Even the SMHI recognised that they have given the wrong impression.
I think the March 4th statement is a face-saving one, as the wording in now way could be “misinterpreted”:
I suspect that the SMHI was subjected to a fair amount of heat after the March 1 hearing, changed their tune as a result, and as I said above, are trying to save face at the same time.
That’s why I pointed out that Jones isn’t psychic. Not until March 4th would it have been even possible to construe that SMHI would allow anything to be published elsewhere. And I use the word ‘construe’ deliberately.
If I went through Wiki, it would become a war over content and I am not interested in that. I just want to collect the data and put it in one place so I can then write and comment based on it. It’s just research that I think would be useful. And I’m not afraid of where this might go — I want the truth wherever it leads.
It seems to me that there are several allegations floating around about climate science:
1. They are manipulating data without a sound basis in science in order to mislead the public.
2. They are hiding that manipulated data from outsiders so no one can check it and uncover this invalid manipulation, thus contravening two of the pillars of the scientific method — replication and peer review.
I can’t really speak to the first. That involves scientific knowledge and knowledge of statistics that I do not have at a high enough level to judge.
However, I can do research and to that end, another project I’d like to undertake is to review how open other science disciplines are, and how willing to share large data sets and code, especially with non-academics for non-science purposes.
Just so we know if the allegations about climate science being pseudoscience Ron and others like to throw around are true in comparison to other disciplines.
It seems to me that this charge that climate science operates under different rules and values than science as a whole comes with absolutely no evidence to back it up and if it is true, I would like to see the evidence. That means comparisons to other scientific disciplines. I might set up a page on that issue as well so I can gather evidence on it.
This would be a great project. Remember, though, to take into consideration the passage of time and the growth of technology.
Just as we’ve seen that SMHI’s change of heart on March 4th is being used to accuse Jones of lying three days earlier, we’ve seen McIntyre (in particular) accuse scientists of not following data availability standards for journals like Nature that were not in place when the articles in question were written.
CRU lost some of their copies of data in an office move in the 1980s and are being slimed over it, with no consideration given to the fact that data in those days was stored on bulky 9-track magnetic tape and there would’ve been boxes of them and movers commonly lose things. And that they had no idea that people would be asking for those copies 25 years later in the first place.
I think you’ll find that various fields of science have been steadily moving towards more and more online access to data, and that climate science is no different. It’s an evolution driven by technological change. After all, Tim Berners-Lee of CERN invented the hypertext transport protocol (HTTP) to ease the sharing of data among physicists. Before that, people had FTP sites up but the web is so much more user-friendly and convenient. And FTP only gives you access to static files, while most web sites (such as this blog) are computer programs backed by some form of dynamic database.
I think you’ll discover that scientists in various fields woke up to the possibilities quite quickly (how long as the GHCN data site been available?), just as did the rest of society, but it takes some time to agree upon protocols, standards, etc for data archiving. A lot has been happening in this regard in the last decade. Scientists like those at CRU are working in an entirely new, and largely unforseen, world compared to when they started working on their global temperature code back in the 1980s. The kind of sharing being asked for today was virtually impossible 20 years ago.
Can I just add, after looking into it afew times now, I can’t find a single example of any scientific research organisation requiring data to be kept for longer than ten years, and that’s across the board. At the hearing last week, Prof Acton said that it’s only 3 to 5 years.
Brian Dodge posts on RC:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/a-mistaken-message-from-iop/comment-page-3/#comment-165010
“All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain. ”
http://www.ecmwf.int/about/overview/
“The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF, the Centre) is an independent international organisation supported by 31 States. Its Member States are:
Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Austria, Portugal, Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom .
We have concluded co-operation agreements with:
Czech Republic, Montenegro, Estonia, Croatia, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Morocco, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia and Slovakia.”
http://data-portal.ecmwf.int/data/d/license/era40/
” The datasets available on this server are provided solely for research purposes. Before retrieving data please read the conditions below and acknowledge that you accept them.
Conditions
1. Data from the projects available on this server is provided without charge and may be used for research and education only. Commercial use of the data is not permitted.
2. Research is understood as any project organised by a university, scientific institute or similar (private or institutional), for non-commercial research purposes only. A necessary condition for the recognition of non-commercial purposes is that all the results obtained are openly available at delivery costs only, without any delay linked to commercial objectives, and that the research itself is submitted for open publication.
3. Although every care has been taken in preparing and testing the data, ECMWF cannot guarantee that the data are correct in all circumstances; neither does ECMWF accept any liability whatsoever for any error or omission in the data, or for any loss or damage arising from its use.
4. Any person extracting data from this server will accept responsibility for informing all data users of these conditions.
5. Data must not be supplied as a whole or in part to any third party without the authorisation of ECMWF.
6. Articles, papers, or written scientific works of any form, based in whole or in part on data supplied by ECMWF, will contain an acknowledgment concerning the supplied data.”
Holy cow. I’m just re-reading all the CA posts from the inception. According to McI he engaged in ~ 25 emails with Crowley over data over 9 months. Talk about dogged.
One thing I note is that TCO was an early troll, pestering Steve to do real science and not just blog criticism. Wow. I’ve had run ins with TCO in another forum. What can I say but that I kinda enjoyed his trolling. 😉
25 emails in 9 mths. Dogged? Holy Cow! I average 120 emails a day in regards to my job, if only 25 “dog” me, I’m chuffed. Just which privileged century do you live in, Shewonk?
As for TCO. One jerk’s troll, is another bloke’s inquiring mind. Personally, I enjoyed TCO’s comments too, although I disapprove of posting comments while under the influence.
I do hope you continue your blog as a dogged example of the sort of pre-Enlightenment, anti-rational values that need to be extinguished from our emerging global civilization if any sort of compassionate, progressive agenda for the future of humanity is to be achieved….You know, like, without killing millions of people just for the ideologically doggedness of it all…
Solid links to gems like this:”I can’t find a single example of any scientific research organisation requiring data to be kept for longer than ten years, and that’s across the board. At the hearing last week, Prof Acton said that it’s only 3 to 5 years.”
Priceless! Keep up the good work!
25 is a lot when its obvious that the person you are writing to is not interested in corresponding with you. 😉
McIntyre was not a colleague — he wasn’t even a scientist. Obviously Mann didn’t spend much time on his requests, shunting him off to Rutherford for data and ignoring his repeated emails for assistance.
Why should he spend time on McIntyre? Scientists are not paid to tutor the general public so they can reproduce scientific work they are not qualified to do. Think if someone with a BSc wanted to try to replicate the work of a vascular surgeon and started writing to them demanding that the surgeon turn over their research and show them how to do a coronary bypass graft?
Seriously, scientists do 10+ years of post-secondary education and then research in order to get to their positions as researchers and professors. Those years must be critical to doing science or else the universities might as well hire BScs to do it instead and save a heck of a lot of money. They could hire people like, well, Watts or Cheif10 and save a bundle. Except of course, science would come crashing to a halt, if Watts and Chief10’s work is the kind of standard science could be expected to produce.
Looking back now, I might conclude Mann should have been more accommodating of McIntyre, but I doubt it was the practice for working scientists to respond to repeated questions for data and methods and explanations from laypeople. McIntyre is a layperson. Scientists get paid to teach students, who are paying tuition to the universities that get grants to educate them. The skeptics think that any person off the street should be able to barge into the lab and demand data and then expect the scientist to tutor them on how to do science. Why should Mann have cooperated with McIntyre — other than he is a piranha who, if not dealt with early enough, will cause enough nips and blood in the water than the rest of the school will come for a feast?
As to pre-enlightenment thinking, anti-science is as anti-science does. I’m quite happy to be on “my side” whatever that means since it’s the other ‘side’ that corners the market on the claim to being anti-enlightenment. I have enough respect for science and its findings to want it to operate free of political interference. The other ‘side’, the contrarians and denialists as well, is all about denying existing science, smearing and denying the work of the majority of scientists. The other side includes charlatans and shills doing shoddy science at the beck and call of financial interests. The other side is the one doing the science inquisition, drawing up lists of people to be charged and harassed, and arguing that scientists should be throw in jail at best, and flogged, drawn and quartered – aka executed — at worst.
I’ll take my side, thanx.
This is a new meme that I’m seeing — the “I’m against AGW legislation because it’s going to kill off all the world’s poor because they won’t have coal-fired electricity generators!”
What a joke. The claim is so ridiculous and transparent that those who support it are either seriously naive or just plain stupid.
It’s amazing that the anti-science crowd, who are together an anti-liberal and anti-regulation and anti-government group, make claims to AGW proponents being anti-enlightenment.
Besides the development of science itself, liberal values, responsible governments, including government regulations of the economy and society (IOW the rule of law), are some of the most valuable enlightenment developments that have enabled the western nations to prosper and advance. Yes, along with the great achievement of sceince itself, liberal values, the development of responsible and representative government and government regulations have enabled us to develop to the extent we have, and to which the rest of the world wants to develop.
I put it to you that it has been a denial of those enlightenment values in the form of a selfish focus on short-term profit and an anti-regulation stance on the part of so many governments due to undue power of corporations that we currently face this problem. Failure to fully account for the cost of fossil fuels, including the environmental destruction, damage, and cost to health, due to bad economic theory and public policy has led us to the point where we can threaten our civilization. Now, when we face the consequences, those same backward forces want to prevent action by an attack on science itself.
And you have the gall to talk about anti-enlightment forces?
I don’t know who you are Wes George, but sorry, I think you’re either incredibly naive and ideologically ignorant at best, or deliberately disingenuous at worst.
@ wes george
Depends on the individual institution’s policies. There is no blanket rule on period of time data should be kept for.
Click to access data.pdf
Reality bites. Something your faithful chums seem averse to.
What’s really priceless is the attribution of Acton’s words about Sweden to Jones, otherwise known as lying.
“You know, like, without killing millions of people just for the ideologically doggedness of it all…”
Sure, you’re consistently holding to the faithful doctrine, but you’re also trying to attribute blame to the people who tried to stop the bus for driving the bus over the victim.
Could you translate that into English, please ?
TCO is an equal-opportunity troll who is honest enough to admit that his views regarding AGW are based on his political ideology. He trolls folks on the science side because he’s in denial. He trolls people like McIntyre to do real science because he wants to believe he’s not in denial, and that real science will prove it 🙂
They could save more than a bundle, actually, ’cause Watts only has a high school diploma to his name …
BTW, shewonk, that was a great rant in response to Wes. I assume this means you’re over the bug given you by your child not long ago …
Funny that, he says he’s trained in meteorology.
http://www.norcalblogs.com/bullfight/archives/2006/08/anthony-watts-1.html
A coronary bypass surgery is technological art, not academic basic research science open to the demands of scientific transparency and reproducibility. I don’t know who you are Shewonk, but you certainly do not grasp even an undergraduate level comprehension of the scientific method.
The fact that McI was no colleague of The Team is a good thing. Apparently you are from the school of “Why should I share my research with you since all you want to do is find faults with it.” You would make a great creationist. You oppose the free market place of ideas? Would you rather a dictatorship of thought?
Those you disagree with you slander with hate speech as “denialists” in reference to the neo-Nazis. That isn’t tolerance, it isn’t pluralist, it certainly is unjust and anti-Enlightenment. It is anathema to every tenet of modern scientific inquiry. To render apologia for such a position is utterly medieval, regressive and hurtful. I understand you are too full of hubris to realize it, but someday, within your life time you will see your own indelible screeds compared to the hate speech of the KKK, McCarthyism, eugenics and other social unjust gestalts of the 20 th century…In Peer Reviewed Journals… History never deals with delusionalists kindly.
The only way science can come crashing to a halt is to deny the fundamental values of The Enlightenment and the scientific method…total transparency. absolute reproducibility. If climate science is so afraid of a few college drop outs that it feel necessary to hide and even destroy data rather than have it fall into the hands of hoi polloi then it is not science at all but a secret elitist society evangelizing for “the betterment of humanity.” A bit like the Masons or counter-reformation. Its truth is dogmatic not empirical.
You have become a victim of your own conspiracy theories. Big oil, unemployed tobacco magnates and evil billionaires living in submarines see huge profits in the coming climate apocalypse. Uh huh. Every one on Wall Street knows mass extinction is great for business.
You call yourself the policy lass. But your policies seem designed to bring the world’s economy to a grinding halt. Fine if you are already an overweight Canadian with 150 cable channels, electricity, broadband, a heated three car garage, free healthcare, pension, etc. But what if you are struggling to feed a family in Mexico, Guatemala, Brazil, India, Indonesia, or a thousand other places where people, human beings like you, but with one one thousandth of our wealth aspire to feed their babies and run a single wire of electrics to a light bulb and a TV and maybe someday have fresh running water piped to a single sink??? This you would deny them. Unwittingly, of course, since wit is the one wealth of which you are most dearly impoverished.
I live in the real world….You think I am joking? I think you’re clueless.
Wes, have you ever head of the Lancet? Chest? JAMA? There are hundreds of other medical research journals. I’ve read many of them all as part of my job and education. Basic science lies behind all medical practice at some level. A vascular surgeon applies all that basic research developed by colleagues who do scientific / medical research and a vascular surgeon learned all that basic research during their education and they rely on all that basic medical research in order to provide him or her with knowledge and new advances. It’s science, Wes. Science.
I think the denialists have duped you Wes — or they’re not paying you nearly enough. Do I think that any Tom, Dick or Harry should be able to demand the work of scientists and methods and tutoring at any time to check their work when they’re not even qualified to wash a test tube? No. It’s a totally ridiculous attack on science to demand that they do. Tell me, Wes, how free are all the other science disciplines? How quickly did they archive their datasets on the internet along with code? Let’s just go back to 1998, when Mann et al, wrote their paper… What about physics? Chemistry? Biology? Genetics? Geology? Show me the beef, Wes, and show it to yourself before you get all riled up about climate science withholding data. I think far too many people are buying the swill from denialists without a pinch of evidence behind it. Show me that climate science is any less forthcoming than all the other branches of science before you can expect me to start getting up in arms.
Basic evidence Wes, that can support your concerns about scientific openness. Show me the money.
BUZZZZ! Godwin’s Law. Major fail.
Please refer to my response above. Let’s do a little science in the defense of the Enlightenment. Show me the absolute transparency in all the other branches of science. Then we can talk. Until then, your rant is just a lot of hysteria.
It would be so comforting, if only what you wrote was based on anything other than wishful thinking. There is a lot of research out there to support the argument that the FF industry is behind a considerable amount of denial. But you’re just one of Monbiot’s unconvincibles.
Wes, dear, calm yourself. Those poor people can’t afford electricity! The bottom billion lives on a dollar a day. Please tell me how they are going to pay for coal generated electricity? Do you know how much a coal generated electricity plant costs? How much do you pay a month in electricity? I pay a couple hundred. So one of those bottom billion you moan about would have to work for 200 days to pay for the electricity I use. If he or she used only half what I do for a family of four, she or he would have to work for 100 days to afford it. Come on — get real! You’re being fed a load of hooey.
I think you’re honestly duped and what you write is a joke.
What a confused and confusing paragraph !
Firstly, ‘to slander with hate speech’ suggests an oral utterance – where did you hear it ?
Secondly, ‘denialists’ is a made-up word which refers only to those who deny AGW.
Thirdly, the reference to ‘neo-Nazis’ is presumably to do with the word ‘denier’ ? If you want to suggest a link between ‘neo-Nazis’ and denial, you go ahead and do so : the rest of us (or, at least, those of us who use the word) will use it to refer to those who deny the science.
Finally, the rest of it (and not just that paragraph) is so bizarre and self-regarding, that only you can possibly comprehend the thoughts behind it. I just laughed, I’m afraid.
Nope. Get the chip off your shoulder.
denial
de·ni·al
n.
Psychology An unconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/denial
IMHO this thread was being very productive (good idea SheWonk), that is until “wes george” came barging in.
I am far too often guilty of feeding the trolls, but we should all make a concerted effort to keep our eye on the ball and not be sucked into meaningless (and endless) arguments with those in denial.
SheWonk, you might wish to solicit the expertise and knowledge of John Mashey and DC. It is my impression that they know this file inside out. DC’s page might be a useful resource.
This is a question that’s been banging around my head for a long time, but I haven’t yet found any information to confirm or deny it:
Has McIntyre – or anyone – submitted a FOI request to CRU since the whole kerfuffle?
Heh, good question. Here’s the FOIA section at CA.
http://climateaudit.org/category/foia/
The last entry is from Feb 7th, involving none other than David Rose of Rosegate fame, and the prior entry is Jan 27th about Jonathan Leake of Leakegate fame.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/rosegate_1/
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/leakegate/
Yes, but he doesn’t claim a degree, and the certification he holds from AMS is an older one that doesn’t require a degree.
Apparently he went to Purdue but didn’t graduate.
On his “about” page he mentions no degree, other than to state that he’s “not a degreed climate scientist”. All he claims for himself is that he’s a TV meteorologist.
The first GHCN product was available (presumably by FTP, as it still is today) in August, 1992.
Eighteen years ago.
That’s very early in the universe of online archiving of free data.
The answer would appear to be no.
Isn’t that interesting.
Job done?
Something like that. There’s been little about “science” at CA, either, apparently (I refuse to go there except when absolutely necessary to track something down). It’s all shooting down the opponents at this point.
Actually, Eli thinks Eli is the one who came up with denialists, Wm. Connolley has the trademark on sceptic, but for Wes, fool will do.
Watts is not a degree holding meteorologist. He is a weatherman and there is a huge difference. See here: