Section 6 responses

6. The scrutiny and re-analysis of data by other scientists is a vital process if hypotheses are to rigorously tested and improved. It is alleged that there has been a failure to make important data available or the procedures used to adjust and analyse that data, thereby subverting a crucial scientific process.   It is alleged that there has been a systematic policy of denying access to data thathas been used in publications, referring to an email from Jones to Mann on 2nd February 2005 which contains the following:  ”And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days?—our does! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind”.

This section dovetails with Sec. 8. See specific questions but general issues regarding data availability can be commented on here. Sec. 8 should be where FOIA issues are addressed.


One Response to “Section 6 responses”

  1. jimchip Says:

    [Repeated as background for Section 7, Sec. 8. I’ll part these out to specific questions later]

    Archiving and specific CA topics

    Sciencemag Enforces Data Archiving

    NAS Report on Data and Methods Disclosure by RomanM

    Jeff Id’s post re NAS Archiving:

    Nature Reports on CRU Stonewalling

    Under the “Can’t depend on Journals” category:
    Glenn McGregor: Data Archiving not required by the International Journal of Climatology

    Another Brick in the Wall: Covers multiple relevant topics: Data Witholding, FOIA, Data Reporting

    Santer Refuses Data Request

    Is Briffa Finally Cornered? This is the CA account of the Royal Society Transactions paper that forced disclosure (see also Oct. 5, 2009 email)
    (Jul 30, 2008)

    CSIRO adopts Phil Jones’ Stonewall Tactic

    Climate Audit and NOAA FOI Policy

    Fortress CRU
    “Despite this, IPCC Review Editor John Mitchell of the UK Met Office claimed to have destroyed all their working documents and correspondence pertaining to his duties as Review Editor and the Met Office also claims to have expunged all records.”

    This one is quite ironic given recent interviews of Phil:
    Climate scientists should think about data quality more often, says Jones

    Part of the Willis Eschenbach FOIA timeline also.
    A First Look at the CRU Station List

    Rob Wilson Archives Data [Thank you, Dr. Wilson :)]

    Recent Cicerone discussion may need context (maybe not for CCE)
    Cicerone of NAS Acquiesces in Data Obstruction (Jul 30, 2007)

    Some Prompt Data Responses Jun 14, 2007

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: