Should Freedom of Information Act abusers like McIntyre take note of the Muir report?

Question

The Independent Climate Change Email Review was recently completed by a commission lead by Sir Muir Russell. Their report found "The argument that CRU has something to hide does not stand up." Among their conclusions, the commission stated:

"We demonstrated that any independent researcher can download station data directly from primary sources and undertake their own temperature trend analysis".

Writing computer code to process the data "took less than two days and produced results similar to other independent analyses. No information from CRU was needed to do this".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10538198.stm

Instead of flooding climate science institutions with these frivolous FoI requests, should abusers like McIntyre instead try doing a little work and reproducing the global temperature data themselves if they doubt its veracity?

Answer 1

I'm at a loss to understand who Fake Jeff M believes should have been included in the study. Does he really believe that David Eyton is too biased? Eyton is head of research at BP. The group required people who understand climate study. It included one career civil servant (Muir), two distinguished science professors, one independent expert who has worked in the private sector, in government and in academia, plus Eyton. That is a diverse group considering that only climate experts could sift through the emails with any degree of understanding.



An important side story though is the organizational changes the U of East Anglia has made. Administration of the CRU has been moved to under the University so that now FOIA requests will go thought the school. Meanwhile, Phil Jones is now Director of Research at the CRU and is more free to work unencumbered by administrative tasks. In hindsight, this is probably the way it should have been to start, not bogging researchers down with these inane bureaucratic tasks. The downside is that now requests have to slog though teams of administrators rather than going right to the source but this step is required to protect researchers from the time-wasting irresponsible requests at which the researchers are not very good.

Answer 2

Should they take note – yes. Will they take note – no.



McIntyre would have to be phenomenally stupid not to know that the data he incessantly requests is readily available to download and has been for years. I don’t think he’s remotely interested in the real data, if he were then he would have it analysed by now. McIntyre is engaged in nothing more than a childish vendetta.



A few weeks ago a question was asked regarding the CRU data, you pointed out that it was available via the GHCN and I pointed out that McIntyre sent an average of two FoI requests to the CRU per day.

https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20100618101531AAw49Bo

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.



As for the deniers doing some work themselves. If they analysed the raw data it would show that they were wrong and that would never do. So instead they ignore the data and claim everyone else is wrong instead.





CRU – Climatic Research Unit

FoI – Freedom of Information Act

GHCN – Global Historical Climate Network

CRUTEM – CRU Temperature

Answer 3

Once again, Dana, you miss the whole point. The objective was not to get more information about the data and how they were being handled, but to find grounds for raising questions so that the likes of some people here can turn round and say "Aren't you aware that serious questions have been asked...?"



With hindsight, this whole thing could have been handled better but that is only from a PR point of view. There are not, and never were, any problems with the science and, as the report points out very clearly, the shortcomings in the behaviour of the researchers, while real, posed only a relatively minor inconvenience to serious scientific colleagues or critics.



So I see no reason whatsoever to expect the McIntires of this world the change their conduct. It is reprehensible now, and it was reprehensible then. The only place where Jones etc went wrong was in not realising that when you are dealing with reprehensible faultfinders, you have to avoid even the merest unwarranted appearance of being at fault.



Now wouldn't it be *wonderful* if we could have a good read of all the e-mails that have passed between McIntyre, Watts, and their sponsors?

Answer 4

Jeff M (denier Jeff) ---



Did you read this:



>>"We demonstrated that any independent researcher can download station data directly from primary sources and undertake their own temperature trend analysis".



Read it again...and quit whining about who coulda, shoulda, woulda.



Either empirically demonstrate that there is a problem with the data and/or programming or shut the Hell up.



This is the great thing about science. You don't need to rely on what anyone else says and you don't have to waste time copying and pasting stuff you do not understand written by idiots who understand even less.



You can do it yourself and - if you know what you are doing - the methods and procedures are so well-defined and understood that every trained person in the world will immediately know exactly what you did and will be forced to admit that you are right - and that they have been wrong all along.



It's so damn easy. What are you waiting for?



=====



musicman812 --



>"Nobody should be made to jump through hoops in an attempt to mimic scientific discoveries funded by public money. That is exactly why they're being funded in the first place...



1) That's the way it works. It's called replication / validation / verification, etc. and it is part of the process of establishing "proof".



"Provide YOUR data (including pre-processing techniques, geographic and temporal information) , provide YOUR code, provide YOUR "x,y,z" in order to back the claims YOU'RE making."



2) Rote copying and repeating the process is "mimicing". Neither I nor anyone I know has ever published anything where we did not rebuild and repeat the process multiple times before submitting our findings.



I go so far as running my analysis on different platforms using alternative algorithms and different commercial mathematical software and making sure those results agree.



In fact, it is frequently easier to replicate someone else's work using the methods and tools you are most familiar with rather than sifting through every transformation and every line of code written by someone else. There is always more than one way to solve a problem - and you can always do that later if you get results that are not comparable or seem inconsistent.

Answer 5

M8 we been after an entire replica for an prolonged time like 2yrs!!! however the cporrect action is to invite in writing and the value may be upto £15, they are going to be required to respond interior of a reasonable time 40 days is reasonable for a regularly occurring request. in case you haven't any longer have been given any success get intouch with the information commissioners branch. Dont carry your breath the information act purely shows a framework and its no longer a criminal binding factor as you're able to discover out, additionally they do no longer might desire to offer it to you if the consequence would be used to hold a case in courtroom, you will first might desire to take the authority to courtroom and ask the decide for the information to be disclosed.

Answer 6

I don't think that matters to McIntyre--there is really no evidence that he wants to do anything but obstruct climate researchers. As I have said before, I have never seen an area of science that has as much data freely available as atmospheric science. If McIntyre or anyone else wants to download data and start doing research there is really nothing stopping them. It's much easier to claim that others' research is flawed than to do research of your own. It's the same way with the clowns that claim the climate models are flawed--there is a guy on here that puts that in his answer to every question, whether it's relevant or not. They don't study the models, they don't try to improve the models, they just complain about them.

Answer 7

The report, which you should obviously be delerious about, makes no mention of the persons who made FOIA requests. It doesn't use the terms "frivolous" or "abusers". As a matter of fact, it places the blame for the increased number of requests in 2009 directly on the CRU.



Here is what the reports says about FOIA:



"As a final comment we find that a fundamental lack of engagement by the CRU team with their obligations under FoIA/EIR, both prior to 2005 and subsequently, led to an overly defensive approach that set the stage for the subsequent mass of FoIA/EIR requests in July and August 2009. We recognise that there was deep suspicion within CRU, as to the motives of those making detailed requests. Nonetheless, the requirements of the legislation for release of information are clear and early action would likely have prevented much subsequent grief."



You are incapable of being unbiased and reasonable. Your latest Climategate report illustrates that perfectly. Did you even read it? Here's a link: http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf



Edit:

"Baccheus - good answer. As we all know, deniers like Jeff M #2 would disregard these investigations no matter what. They are in denial, after all."



No, Baccheus did not have a good answer. I had a good answer. And I'll add that all this FOIA nonsense could have been avoided by the scientists publishing their raw data when they published their studies as is done in all other disciplines of science. Or, since they may have just forgotten to do that, then publish the data at the first FOIA request. Problem solved.

Answer 8

Only if the left will stop using the Freedom of Information act in similar ways.

Answer 9

The MUir report is fundamentally flawed. It was not an investigative report else they would have had more and more diverse sources. This is no more than a political hack job.



Now if a truely investigative report comes out that is truely critical of what needs to be criticized and supportive of what needs to be supported then we would be talking about science. This report doesn't even come close.



Pure politics at work. The death of a free society...





Edit:



But who is Jeff M #2? I've been in the system longer and have more answers plus more best answers...



I deny only lies and false pretensions of fact. I accept all PROVEN facts and all UNFILTERED data of course I follow the science of Climate shifts and climate changes not the RELIGEON.

Answer 10

McIntyre has been diligent in holding climate exaggeraters feet to the fire. I am sure AGW worshippers don't like it but that is what science is all about. It has to endure challenges.



I find it interesting that Russel talks in the present when the case discusses past "offenses". What would you think if the Judge in the OJ case looked around the court room and said I don't think OJ is guilty of murdering anybody in the last 10 minutes.



When Jones discusses tricks to hide the decline, he isn't talking about changing the data.. I guess if Russel were going to try the Piltdown Man Case his verdict would be that we are all free to make fossil reconstructions too.

Answer 11

I think Lizden's point in Penn State's inquiry into the accusations against Michael Mann relating to the CRU e-mail purge sums it up nicely:



"Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that prior to publication, scientists may have a

variety of reasons to keep things confidential, but after publication "there's an obligation

to explain exactly how you got them, especially if they're controversial."



Once again "there's an obligation to explain exactly how you got them, especially if they're controversial".



Claiming that the information is out there for anyone to transform the data themselves is unbecoming of any scientist who respects the tenets of scientific inquiry. If they have a proof -- then prove it. Nobody should be made to jump through hoops in an attempt to mimic scientific discoveries funded by public money. That is exactly why they're being funded in the first place.



Provide YOUR data (including pre-processing techniques, geographic and temporal information) , provide YOUR code, provide YOUR "x,y,z" in order to back the claims YOU'RE making.



I'd hate to think that we'd give scientists absolute impunity in the inquiry process by allowing them to claim "the information is out there if you're interested in checking the validity of my statements." Why not make it easy on everyone and just provide that information as used in the experiments from which you've stated your conclusions (raw data, process, experiments, code/algorithms, assumptions, certainties, etc)?



If people are willing to accept the "find it if you want it" mentality, then what we're talking about here is something quite different than traditional scientific discovery. And to be blunt, McIntyre wouldn't have had to file FOIA requests if the information was being disseminated properly -- specific to the claims being made.



Reassigning blame to McIntyre for the hawkish nature of the AGW establishment is unbecoming. We can disagree on the science itself, but we should all agree on the process.



My last point: There is such thing as an FOIA "abuser" but not in the context you aim to use it. The law was put in place to insure information was shared as a response to this type of suppression. Suppressing data is an abuse of the FOIA and partaking in such behavior might classify one as an "abuser" (if we're to resort to the lowest common denominator by calling people names).



Requesting data is protected by FOIA. Making repeated requests after being denied or thwarted from securing such data is a State given right.



Had the information been openly shared, the number of requests could have been decreased (on an exponential scale?).

Answer 12

Yes, but they won't. They make their money by putting out misinformation and manipulating the public.