|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 21, 2009 2:21:21 GMT
Just a thought?
Are the FOI laws different in Britian than in the US? Those of us in the US are making assumptions based on OUR FOI laws.
Maybe in Britian, there is not any freedom left....so in effect the law is worthless?
I don't know....but am curious.
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Nov 21, 2009 2:23:32 GMT
sOcOld is employing the same form of argumentation that he uses to confuse some very basic discussions about the science. Now he is faced with the prospect that the data and theories he has incorporated into those arguments have no validity and he just keeps pushing forward. For this debate on Climategate he should have changed rhetorical strategies so that the abusrdity of one line of thinking could not be compared to the other and thus further diminish both approaches and their adjacent arguments. -1 clueless Is that the best you got? Well of course it is. Your whole world is crumbling around you so you resort to an Algore retort. I do feel sorry for you. Your situation would like mine if aliens came down and told us that they made up God in order placate mankind and manipulate its thinking. Come to think of it, it's exactly the same! LOL!!!
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 21, 2009 2:27:00 GMT
Just a thought? Are the FOI laws different in Britian than in the US? Those of us in the US are making assumptions based on OUR FOI laws. Maybe in Britian, there is not any freedom left....so in effect the law is worthless? I don't know....but am curious. I am sure the laws are different, especially in regards to what is inclusive. But conspiring to circumvent the law is sort of a universal crime not viewed favorably by the public. Excuses like those being made by Socold don't fare well at all when you get to the courtroom. . . .in fact silent defenses keeping your mouth shut works a lot better.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 21, 2009 2:29:16 GMT
As far as Briffa.....his paper is junk. The overwhelming evidence shows that there was a MWP....even in the Southern Hemisphere. Oh dear. Briffa's paper shows there was a MWP. So obviously you don't have a clue what you are talking about. uh what? It can take a long time to collate work together for a 3rd party, even if it's "all digital". You often have to convert it from a load of disjointed personal notes into something portable and documented for an end user. It isn't simply "copy paste the data into and email" affair. Well iirc someone (was it briffa?) did try something like that to satisfy one of CA's requests, but CA then complains that no metadata or description is provided! One of the emails complains that the FOI harassers will not stop they'll just keep asking for more and more. First they ask for the code, then they want old versions of the code, then they want the intermediate steps, every rough note, a description for all steps, and then they ask for explanations. As a scientists working on research why would they want to waste time fulfilling such requests if they perceive the FOI requesters as timewasters who are just trying to find nitpicking errors to exagerate and spin which will finally cause the scientists ins question to be accused of fraud? If scientists believe the demands are for scientific reasons they will hand the data over even with an FOI. CA is a public blog, not an independent auditing company. The scientists simply don't believe the data requests are for scientific reasons. Note that no published paper has come out of the Briffa CA work, so they were right. It's not about the time to transfer files, it's about the time to collate the information into files in the first place. I don't think you appreciate the work required to deal with some of these requests. Perhaps you should read the emails. Or perhaps not. SoCold: I don't know how much you use a computer and scanner etc. It is very easy to establish a file......which I would have to assume anyone writing literature would do....a master file that everything used in that literature is keps. The FOI act requires that you transfer the file...one click does it. YOU shared the info...it is up to the recipient to decipher it. As far as Briffa....his paper is the only paper i have ever read that bascially makes the temps of the MWP disappear. The sensativity in his paper is the smallest....unless you know of one smaller. All the papers relateing to the US/ASIA/S.A......show the temps of present have still not exceeded the MWP. They are getting close, but not there. Briffa is the only one that has the current temps higher.....that I have read. As I said...you think he is stellar......I think he is junk.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Nov 21, 2009 2:31:32 GMT
Jones has been extensively, and repeatedly, funded by United States Department of Energy money. The DOE requires -- no exceptions -- that ALL REQUESTERS be given data and code.
McIntyre would have LOVED to have wasted NONE of Jones's time and merely be given what DOE policy required YEARS AGO!
[More in my post a few higher...]
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 21, 2009 2:32:11 GMT
Just a thought? Are the FOI laws different in Britian than in the US? Those of us in the US are making assumptions based on OUR FOI laws. Maybe in Britian, there is not any freedom left....so in effect the law is worthless? I don't know....but am curious. I am sure the laws are different, especially in regards to what is inclusive. But conspiring to circumvent the law is sort of a universal crime not viewed favorably by the public. Excuses like those being made by Socold don't fare well at all when you get to the courtroom. . . .in fact silent defenses keeping your mouth shut works a lot better. I see that Magellan posted a brief summary of the requirements of a recipient of US dollars in regard to the FOI. That is what I based my conclusions on....I will await a British Subject...(ya know...a citizen)....to inform us of the law in Britian. IF this had been NOAA or NASA.....the game would have been over a longggggggggg time ago.
|
|
|
Post by enough on Nov 21, 2009 2:33:03 GMT
I posted the link to the file earlier. The Russian FTP link is now dead. If the moderators do not object and the is a sane way to post a 65 meg zip file I will do so here.
As for looking thru them, get some thing like UEDIT and search all the test files in mass for you favorite characters.
It has always been suspected, but here his the direct proof of individuals using public money and government resources to push a political agenda. NOAA, NCAR, NASA, NSF, EPA and the like are all implicated. As far as I am concerned they should all be shut down. And as for the billions in climate earmarks in the stimulus bill, the ones who directed them should also be lit up.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 21, 2009 2:34:39 GMT
I am sure the laws are different, especially in regards to what is inclusive. But conspiring to circumvent the law is sort of a universal crime not viewed favorably by the public. Excuses like those being made by Socold don't fare well at all when you get to the courtroom. . . .in fact silent defenses keeping your mouth shut works a lot better. I see that Magellan posted a brief summary of the requirements of a recipient of US dollars in regard to the FOI. That is what I based my conclusions on....I will await a British Subject...(ya know...a citizen)....to inform us of the law in Britian. IF this had been NOAA or NASA.....the game would have been over a longggggggggg time ago. Woodstove, Please accept my humble applogy. I acredited your work to Magellon....Has been a long day, once again I appolgize.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 21, 2009 2:38:13 GMT
IF UEA was getting US taxpayer dollars.......then the US law would apply. With that said, I look forward to a Dept of Justice inquiry into this matter. This is inexcuseable.....period. Numerous laws have been broken.
This has become a civil matter now as well. Talk about a huge mess!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 21, 2009 2:45:18 GMT
Socold, FOIA recognizes that work paid for by the taxpayers should be available to the taxpayers. The work wasn't paid by the taxpayers. The data belonged to the russians, Briffa couldn't give it away. There are also lots of things that aren't covered by FOI. Intellectual property is a big one. If there was no intellectual property rights then a rival research center could simply demand the source code from a rival, steal their hard work and publish results before them. Like in industry there has to be some guarantee of intellectual property protection, either that or no competition. If UK law simply dissolved that concept of intellectual property in science then many countries would refuse to supply UK academics with data they didn't want to be public. It's similar to the case for releasing that intelligence info about the iraq war, which included information from foreign intelligence agencies. The argument was that if the UK released it, other countries would not trust giving us information again. Intellectual property rights is what enabled Briffa to use the russian data under agreement that he wouldn't publish it. The russians were still working on a publication for it. One thing noticeable in the emails is the competitiveness between different climate research teams and between different authors. Some of the emails contain heated arguments. I don't see evidence of fabrication and fraud, rather people working hard on this area of science and trying to further it, disagreeing sometimes. Some of the FOI requests were for emails, which as private correspondence are not covered by the FOIA. And for good reason - if someone sends you an email in confidence they don't expect a UK law to require that email be released to the public at some arbitary date in the future. If they knew that might happen, they might just make a phone call instead..or not bother at all. Climate audit is not a licensed or even independent auditor. For a start I would say a necessary requirement for auditing is not to base it on a public blog as that conjures up certain pressure to produce entertaining stories rather than actual auditing. I don't know what losing the records refers to, but as far as I am aware the temperature reconstructions, and the instrumental records can all be reproduced from available data. Frankly climate audit isn't auditing in a scientific way. In science you try to reproduce the result using your own means (an independent method). You don't try to replicate the result using the exact same means. I don't think anything will happen. What happened to Briffa? we were promised he would be fired, etc. And how is Coleman getting on suing Al Gore along with 30,000 scientists? Has that happened yet? I am curious to see as global temperatures continue rising over coming decades whether skeptics will quietly disappear or if they will continue accusing Briffa, etc of fraud (or perhaps the next generation of scientists)
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 21, 2009 2:56:04 GMT
Socold, FOIA recognizes that work paid for by the taxpayers should be available to the taxpayers. The work wasn't paid by the taxpayers. The data belonged to the russians, Briffa couldn't give it away. There are also lots of things that aren't covered by FOI. Intellectual property is a big one. If there was no intellectual property rights then a rival research center could simply demand the source code from a rival, steal their hard work and publish results before them. Like in industry there has to be some guarantee of intellectual property protection, either that or no competition. If UK law simply dissolved that concept of intellectual property in science then many countries would refuse to supply UK academics with data they didn't want to be public. It's similar to the case for releasing that intelligence info about the iraq war, which included information from foreign intelligence agencies. The argument was that if the UK released it, other countries would not trust giving us information again. Intellectual property rights is what enabled Briffa to use the russian data under agreement that he wouldn't publish it. The russians were still working on a publication for it. One thing noticeable in the emails is the competitiveness between different climate research teams and between different authors. Some of the emails contain heated arguments. I don't see evidence of fabrication and fraud, rather people working hard on this area of science and trying to further it, disagreeing sometimes. Some of the FOI requests were for emails, which as private correspondence are not covered by the FOIA. And for good reason - if someone sends you an email in confidence they don't expect a UK law to require that email be released to the public at some arbitary date in the future. If they knew that might happen, they might just make a phone call instead..or not bother at all. Climate audit is not a licensed or even independent auditor. For a start I would say a necessary requirement for auditing is not to base it on a public blog as that conjures up certain pressure to produce entertaining stories rather than actual auditing. I don't know what losing the records refers to, but as far as I am aware the temperature reconstructions, and the instrumental records can all be reproduced from available data. Frankly climate audit isn't auditing in a scientific way. In science you try to reproduce the result using your own means (an independent method). You don't try to replicate the result using the exact same means. I don't think anything will happen. What happened to Briffa? we were promised he would be fired, etc. And how is Coleman getting on suing Al Gore along with 30,000 scientists? Has that happened yet? I am curious to see as global temperatures continue rising over coming decades whether skeptics will quietly disappear or if they will continue accusing Briffa, etc of fraud (or perhaps the next generation of scientists) I see that British law differs from US law. US law, when FOI is used, requires everything, and I mean everything to be turned over. If you are a public employee, using public dollars, every keystroke can be demanded. In US law, there is not such thing as intelectual property rights IF you are a government employee. That is part of the public domain. As someone stated, here, if you wish to protect intelectual prob rights, you go work for a private company etc. Not sure how this will play out as there does appear to be diff in law between the US and Britian. Guess it depends on who got the US money and if the FOI papers were asking for research funded by US dollars.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 21, 2009 2:56:05 GMT
I am interested to know what the best parts are so I am going through the list from bishophill. But hit a snag when scanning through:
What's wrong with this one? Are they not allowed to share such an opinion?
I thought this list was the "best arguments" but this one doesn't appear to be an argument at all. Is this list not what I presume?
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Nov 21, 2009 3:03:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 21, 2009 3:07:21 GMT
That is a load of crap and you know it. Briffa wouldn't release the data for anybody, and never would have except RMS gave him an ultimatum, which is also referenced in the emails. Replication is part and parcel to testing a hypothesis. The problem is, none of these hucksters want anyone to look at their work, they say "trust us". Sadly for you, you will no longer be able to get away with "guessing" or rather misrepresenting the views of scientists. The emails are very clear about why they were resisting FOI requests. For example: "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." Now please provide the email numbers for your claim of "Briffa wouldn't release the data for anybody, and never would have except RMS gave him an ultimatum, which is also referenced in the emails". Consider it an FOI request so I can audit your working. Wow I didn't even mention Steve M. When you read "if they knew the requester was just going to spin big news out of any little pointless errors" why did you immediately think of Steve M? lol No I was talking about a hypothetical person and would it be in the interest of science to keep providing them data? Additionally people are making fraud allegations against the scientists. I mean aren't you yourself accusing them of fraud? See email 1189536059 from 2007: "I've been in discussion with Michael over the past several months about a number of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests for CRU data. I've responded to one and will be responding to another in the next few days. " The request in question is listed further down. Are you going to go on record claiming no FOI requests have been honored? If not I don't see the point in your disagreement with what I said. It is a matter of law, not what may be inconvenient to the scientist. Actually it isn't, the law for example does not demand all intermediate workings and source code are released. It doesn't demand that data belonging to someone else can be released, or demand that intellectual property must be released. There are a lot of requests that simply should not be honored. What data to your mind was not made available? Be specific. Itemize them. Your hands are waiving at the speed of a fly's wings. [/quote] Okay here are some of my favorite minor errors which were totally irrelevant to the particular analysis which were nevertheless blown up into big stories by skeptics that prompted numerous skeptics to allege scientists had committed fraud: -gistemp post 2000 error (1934 vs 1998) -gistemp october 2008 copy from september -the upside down chronology error -mauna loa co2 site update error [/quote] Taxpayers are paying for their work. You make it sound like these guys are philanthropists with millions invested in some world saving invention. If it's so monumental and secret, then copyright it. Again however, these hucksters work for the tax payer. What part of that don't you understand? CA is still down, but here's a little tidbit for you. socold quoted: David Holland has also made FOI inquiries to Keith Briffa, a lead author of AR4 chapter 6. Here's a progress report documenting: May 5 - FOI request May 6 - CRU Acknowledgement June 3 - CRU Refusal Notice June 4 - Holland Appeal June 20 - CRU Rejection of Appeal
May 5 Holland FOI Request to CRU
Dear Mr Palmer, Request for Information concerning the IPCC, 2007 WGI Chapter 6 Assessment Process
Drs Keith Briffa and Timothy Osborn of your Climatic Research Unit served as lead authors on the IPCC Fourth Assessment, which by international agreement was required to be undertaken on an comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis.1 On 31 March 2008, I asked Dr Briffa for important specific information, not so far released, on his work as a lead author to which I have had no reply or acknowledgement, but have, through other FoI enquiries, been given a copy of his email dated 1 April 2008, to several other IPCC participants including Dr Philip Jones, and to which my letter was attached. He told his colleagues his response to me would be brief when he got round to it. Also included in the documents released to me is an email dated 14 March 2008 to Dr Briffa, among others, from Susan Solomon, Co-Chair of WGI, advising the addressees not to disclose information beyond that (which I consider inadequate) already in the public domain.
Accordingly, I hereby request the following information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and/or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004:
Phil Jones, three weeks after David Holland's FOI request:
From: Phil Jones To: “Michael E. Mann” Subject: IPCC & FOI Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
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. I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!! Cheers Phil
Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ
socold, you're going to look pretty silly if you keep pushing the notion Jones & co. were compliant to FOI requests. Ah yes, there is Santer 08, another FOI deflector who in the end lost his claim of "proprietary" intellectual property. Tell us socold, what earth shattering code did these unlicensed programmers develop? You mean stuff like creating hockey sticks out of random data? How about homogenization of gridded cells to "adjust" raw data? What economic pain would they feel if someone had their precious code? Aside from all that, Jones DESTROYED lost dog ate the files! Ever hear of Linux? Now please provide the email numbers for your claim of "Briffa wouldn't release the data for anybody, and never would have except RMS gave him an ultimatum, which is also referenced in the emails". Consider it an FOI request so I can audit your working. socold, how stupid do you want to look? I've been following the hockey stick game for the last 4 years. Once CA is up and I bother to remember, I'll post the Briffa debacle including RMS's ULTIMATUM. You're becoming delusional, and should really think about making such ill informed statements. For now, here's Santer threatening to quit RMS because they want him to abide by their publishing standards: I’m having a dispute with the new editor of Weather. I’ve complained about him to the RMS Chief Exec. If I don’t get him to back down, I won’t be sending any more papers to any RMS journals and I’ll be resigning from the RMS. The paper is about London and its UHI! Cheers Phil At 16:48 19/03/2009, you wrote:
Thanks, Phil. The stuff on the website is awful. I’m really sorry you have to deal withthat kind of crap. If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available – raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations – I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals. Cheers, Ben
Last but not least, you are aware Briffa funded the Russian's work?
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Nov 21, 2009 3:08:37 GMT
|
|