How many FOIA requests did or does CRU receive?

Question

A recent statement here:

"Stephen McIntyre for example sends an average of two requests per day. As a consequence requests from certain people were given a low priority and several extraneous and infantile requests were ignored."

Can anybody verify the above statements?

Answer 1

For a while at least they were getting 2 per day.



"Last year in July alone the unit received 60 FoI requests from across the world. With a staff of only 13 to cope with them, the demands were accumulating faster than they could be dealt with. “According to the rules,” says Jones, “you have to do 18 hours’ work on each one before you’re allowed to turn it down.” It meant that the scientists would have had a lot of their time diverted from research.



A further irritation was that most of the data was available online, making the FoI requests, in Jones’s view, needless and a vexatious waste of his time. In the circumstances, he says, he thought it reasonable to refer the applicants to the website of the Historical Climatology Network in the US."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017905.ece



Frankly that's what I would do. Point people to where they could get the damn data for themselves instead of pestering me for it.



CRU isn't the only climate science institution getting masses of frivolous FoI requests.

http://climatesight.org/2010/03/07/freedom-of-information/



*edit* you're just proving Jones did the right thing. He responded to the 'vexatious' requests by telling them where they could get the raw data for themselves.



And of course FOIA doesn't say "you must take 18 hours to respond to a request". Jones was saying that's how long responding to a request takes.



I don't know why I'm trying to reason with you though. I know it's a complete waste of time. You want to believe Jones did something wrong, and nothing in the world will convince you otherwise. Not even the fact that several investigations have exonerated him of any wrongdoing.



"Okay, so I'm getting a solid NO on this question. That's what I figured."



Of course you are. I could build a time machine, take you back to June of last year, bring you to CRU, and stuff your nose into the pile of FoI requests, and you still wouldn't believe it, because you're a denier in denial. You won't believe anything that could compromise your denial.

Answer 2

Once again Mike you are blabbering when you have no clue what you are talking about. Because you don't understand a law, you claim that the educated person is BS'ing -- but it is you.



The FOIA stipulates that the Secretary of State will set certain regulations. The regulations set the max cost at 450-pounds, at 25-pounds per hour. Get out you calculator and do the math.



To call BS on someone else when you are flat-out wrong just shows an unwillingness to learn anything. This is the only reason why any deniers exist -- an unwillingness to face reality even when it stares you in the face.

Answer 3

Mike, I would have thought you’d have realised by now that when I make a statement I do so because it’s a valid fact. You not liking it doesn’t mean it’s not a fact. For the benefit of anyone interested, here’s the question from which Mike’s quote is taken https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20100617120818AAUyc6C&show=7#profile-info-rB2EK4xeaa



The figure of 2 requests per day was stated in a CRU press release issued to the media in November 2009 – I have a copy of it here, it probably won’t be hard to find online if you looked for it.



Stating that McIntyre made 2 requests per day is somewhat underplaying the reality of the situation. At the peak of McIntyre’s crusade he was sending in 10 requests per day. There’s plenty of references to this on the internet including in this article from Nature http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090812/full/460787a.html



A typical request from McIntyre was “I hereby make a Freedom of Information request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 in respect to any confidentiality agreements restricting transmission of CRUTEM data to non-academics involving the following countries: Indonesia, Paraguay, Namibia, Thailand and Russia”.



A whole spate of identical requests were received, the only thing that differed were the countries for which he was allegedly seeking the data.



- - - - - - - -



I would have to agree 100% with Dana’s comments in his last paragraph that “You won't believe anything that could compromise your denial”. I used to observe a certain objectivity in your questions and answers but recently all vestiges of that objectivity seem to have disappeared.



I’m sure that if Richard the Physicist, Dana, Jeff M, Baccheus, Pegminer, myself or any other realist stated that 2 + 2 = 4 you’d disagree, demand to see the physical proof and claim the whole thing was a fraud. But if a fellow denier were to state that 2 + 2 = 5 you’d accept this as fact without hesitation.



What happened to objectivity and intellectual capacity?



- - - - - - - - - -



Just to add, I know from first hand experience what the deniers and skeptics are like when it comes to abusing the FOI and EIR Acts. We receive numerous such requests and I can only assume that the deniers are trawling through directories in order to find our contact details. Fortunately our work is privately commissioned and invariably all copyrights, intellectual property rights, patents etc are owned by the commissioning organisation, consequently we don’t need to comply.

Answer 4

The question should be why someone like McIntyre doesn't actually do science, but thinks it's more productive to keep OTHERS from doing science. Personally, if I thought AGW science was wrong I'd get some data and analyze it. In fact, that's what I'm doing all the time. It's so EASY to get data in the atmospheric sciences. I recently ordered the Integrated Surface Hourly Observations (from tens of thousands of stations around the world) for multiple years and it was delivered to me within a couple of days.There is so much data out there for people to work with, that the only reason I can see for idiots like McIntyre to spend their time with Freedom of Information requests is because they're not really interested in doing science themselves, they just want to keep real scientists from doing productive work.



FOIA is NOT the way to do science!



By the way Ottawa Mike, I find your language offensive in this answer, but not as offensive as your recent behavior on here. You need to take some responsibility for what you say and do here and show some ethics. If you make a mistake, then own up to it, don't just pretend that what you said was correct, when everybody can see it is wrong. You choose best answers that are factually incorrect, you think graphs should be manipulated to obscure the data and take pride in it. You used to have some sense of fair play, but recently it seems like you'll do anything and say anything to support denial.

Answer 5

After reading the last link from Dana it makes me realize just how much a witch hunt McIntyre is attempting. He sends many FOIA requests which, according to statements, each take about 18 hours to process. And East Anglia is not the only source he is trying this with. He then posts on his blog, according to Dana's link, concerning the matter and the source is then innundated with hate mail from his readers. In your opinion, is this how scientific assessment works?



I also looked at the link Richard posted prior to him posting it. The link does not state ALL FOIA requests. What it does state is the FOIA request concerning relating directly to the CRU or staff. In Dana's link you'll notice that in one month alone they received 60 FOIA requests. These requests do not all related directly to CRU staff.



OttawaMike: I asked you if this was the way scientific assessment works in your opinion. You did not answer but instead went off on my comment concerning a witch hunt, which it definitely does appear to be. You are displaying your one-sided point of view in your responses and your questions. You are only trying to extend the falsehoods that were believed, through manipulation of the truth, during 'Climategate'.

Answer 6

I believe this is one month's worth...



http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/25032/response/66822/attach/2/Response%20letter%20199%20100121.pdf



Ottawa - Apparently, you didn't comprehend the following statement...



"The table below lists all FOIA requests we have received relating directly to the CRU or staff who work in the CRU from 1 January 2005 until 22 December 2009."



All the FOIA requsts were dated for 2009 (Ref FOI_09-53). The "09" is for 2009. The requests dealt with CRU or staff who worked there between "1 January 2005 until 22 December 2009."