Section 6.2 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”. 

QUESTIONS  TO ADDRESS

 2. If so, do you agree that this principle has been abused?

Advertisements

11 Responses to “Section 6.2 Responses”

  1. Jimchip Says:

    1109021312 Feb 21, 2005 (Jones to Mann):

    “Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
    Cheers
    Phil
    PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !”

    1141737742 7 Mar 2006 (Osborn to Briffa): The whole email needs to be read.

    “Keith – see below. I bet it won’t be the end of the episode! – Tim

    —————————- Original Message —————————-
    Subject: Re: data request to SCIENCE for 1120514
    From: “Jesse Smith”
    Date: Mon, March 6, 2006 8:03 pm
    To: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
    ————————————————————————–
    Dear Dr. Osborn,

    Thank you for your clear and careful response to the requests made by
    Dr. McIntyre, which we forwarded to you: it was quite satisfactory, we
    believe, and will greatly help Brooks (Hanson) in crafting his reply to
    Dr. McIntyre. I hope that this will be the end of this episode, but if
    it is not, we will be in touch again.

    Best regards,

    Jesse Smith

    =======================
    Dr. Jesse Smith
    Senior Editor
    ———————————————-
    Science
    1200 New York Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20005
    USA
    ———————————————-
    (202) 326-6556
    (202) 408-1256 (FAX)
    hjsmith@aaas.org
    =======================

    thank you for your patience while waiting for our reply. Before
    responding to the specific data requests, we would like to say that
    it is our view that we should provide sufficient data to enable all
    the main elements of our analysis to be checked, but that we are not
    obliged to provide the data that would enable the research reported
    in other papers to be checked, even if we cite those other papers or
    use results reported in those other papers. You will see how this
    view has determined our response to some of the requests.,,

    >Dear Dr. Osborn,
    >
    >We have just received an email from Steve McIntyre (pasted below),
    >with a long and very specific list of alleged deficiencies in the
    >availability of data by which to evaluate your recent paper, “The
    >Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past
    >1200 Years,” and others. Wishing to deal with this issue in a
    >conscientious and reasonable way, we are passing the email along to
    >you as a request for data,”

  2. jimchip Says:

    http://climateaudit.org/2008/07/30/has-briffa-encountered-a-real-science-magazine/

    In 2000, Keith Briffa, lead author of the millennial section of AR4, published his own versions of Yamal, Taymir and Tornetrask, all three of which have been staples of all subsequent supposedly “independent” reconstructions. The Briffa version of Yamal has a very pronounced HS and is critical in the modern-medieval differences in several studies. However, the Briffa version for Yamal differs substantially from the version in the publication by the originating authors (Hantemirov, Holocene 2002), but is the one that is used in the multiproxy studies (though it’s hard to tell since Hantemirov is usually cited.) Studies listed in AR4 that use the Briffa versions include not just Briffa 2000, but Mann and Jones 2003, Moberg et al 2005, D’Arrigo et al 2006, Hegerl et al 2007, as well as Osborn and Briffa 2006….

    At the time, I requested the measurement data, which had still not been archived 6 years after the original publication of Briffa 2000, despite the availability of excellent international archive facilities at WDCP-A (www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo). Briffa refused. I asked Science to require Briffa to provide the data. After some deliberation, they stated that Osborn and Briffa 2006 had not used the measurement data directly but had only used the chronologies from an earlier study and that I should take up the matter with the author of the earlier study, pointedly not identifying the author, who was, of course, Briffa himself. I wrote Briffa again, this time in his capacity as author of the 2000 article in Quaternary Science Reviews and was blown off.

  3. jimchip Says:

    http://climateaudit.org/2006/02/23/reply-to-science/
    1141737742.txt

    From: “Tim Osborn”
    To: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk
    Subject: [Fwd: Re: data request to SCIENCE for 1120514]
    Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 08:22:22 -0000 (GMT)
    Reply-to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
    Cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk

    Keith – see below. I bet it won’t be the end of the episode! – Tim

    Because Steve McIntyre has explicitly stated that he is unable to
    verify our results for the Boreal/Upperwright case, we have extracted
    the temperatures we used for that case only and attach them here as a
    text file.

  4. jimchip Says:

    1076336623.txt

    From: Phil Jones

    To: “Tas van Ommen”
    Subject: Re: FW: Law Dome O18
    Date: Mon Feb 9 09:23:43 2004
    Cc: mann@virginia.edu

    Dear Tas,
    Thanks for the email. Steve McIntyre hasn’t contacted me directly about Law Dome
    (yet), nor about any of
    the series used in the 1998 Holocene paper or the 2003 GRL one with Mike. I suspect (hope)
    that he won’t. I
    had some emails with him a few years ago when he wanted to get all the station temperature
    data we use here
    in CRU. At that time, I hid behind the fact that some of the data had been received from
    individuals and not
    directly from Met Services through the Global Telecommunications Service (GTS) or through
    GCOS.

  5. jimchip Says:

    http://climateaudit.org/2009/08/12/nature-news-report-on-cru-vs-ca/

    Nature reported today on the CRU data requests. I was interviewed at length last Thurs, followup Friday by Olive Heffernan of Nature. They even asked for a photograph. I haven’t seen the article yet. More after I see the story.

    http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2009/08/mcintyre_versus_jones_climate_1.html

  6. jimchip Says:

    1058275977.txt For want of a better place. [Dr. Dendro’s comment to Briffa is choice: “Thanks for the paper and help in toning down Mike’s efforts to put a stake in the Esper heart. “]

    From: Edward Cook
    To: Keith Briffa
    Subject: Re: Fwd: revised NH comparison manuscript
    Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:32:57 -0400

    Hi Keith,

    Thanks for the paper and help in toning down Mike’s efforts to put a
    stake in the Esper heart. I quickly read the paragraph you mention.
    Undoubtedly part of what is said is true, but it doesn’t explain it
    all of the differences between the original MBH reconstruction and
    any of the other NH recons. Now that Mike has moved on to a totally
    new NH recon, I suppose all of this is a mute point. However, your
    Blowing Hot and Cold piece clearly showed that the MBH estimates were
    undoubtedly deficient in low-frequency variability compared to ANY
    other recon. Enough said. I need to enjoy myself.
    Cheers,
    Ed

    >Ed
    >Thought you should see this (in confidence) . Have succeeded in
    >getting reasonable citation to your work and much toning down of
    >criticism of Esper et al in first draft ( see last paragraph before
    >Section C) . Cheers
    >Keith
    >
    >P.S. Do not ask me why Ray, Malcolm and Phil are on this cause I
    >don’t know – work cam out of stuff Tim did with Scott when visiting
    >there last year.
    >
    >>Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:51:09 -0400
    >>Subject: revised NH comparison manuscript
    >>Cc: Mike Mann
    >>To: Malcolm Hughes ,
    >> Raymond Bradley , Tim Osborn ,
    >> Keith Briffa , Phil Jones

    >>From: Scott Rutherford
    >>X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552)
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>Attached to this e-mail is a revision of the northern hemisphere
    >>comparison manuscript. First some general comments. I tried as best
    >>as possible to incorporate everyone’s suggestions. Typically this
    >>meant adding/deleting or clarifying text. There were cases where we
    >>disagreed with the suggested changes and tried to clarify in the
    >>text why.
    >>
    >>In this next round of changes I encourage everyone to make specific
    >>suggestions in terms of wording and references (e.g. Rutherford et
    >>al. GRL 1967 instead of “see my GRL paper”). I also encourage
    >>everyone to make suggestions directly in the file in coloured text
    >>or by using Microsquish Word’s “Track Changes” function (this will
    >>save me deciphering cryptic penmanship; although I confess, my
    >>writing is worse than anyone’s). If you would prefer to use the
    >>editing functions in Adobe Acrobat let me know and I will send a
    >>PDF file. If you still feel strongly that I have not adequately
    >>addressed an issue please say so.
    >>I will incorporate the suggestions from this upcoming round into a
    >>manuscript to be submitted. After review, everyone will get a crack
    >>at it again.
    >>
    >>I will not detail every change made (if anyone wants the file with
    >>the changes tracked I can send it). Here are the major changes:
    >>
    >>1) removal of mixed-hybrid approach and revised discussions/figures
    >>2) removal of CE scores from the verification tables
    >>3) downscaling of the Esper comparison to a single figure panel and
    >>one paragraph.
    >>4) revised discussion of spatial maps and revised figure (figure 8).
    >>5) seasonal comparisons have been revised
    >>
    >>Several suggestions have been made for where to submit. These are
    >>listed on page 1 of the manuscript. Please indicate your preference
    >>ASAP and I will tally the votes.
    >>
    >>I would like to submit by late July, so if you could please get me
    >>comments by say July 15 that would be great. I will send out a
    >>reminder in early July. If I don’t hear from you by July 15 I will
    >>assume that you are comfortable with the manuscript.
    >>
    >>Please let me know if you have difficulty with the file or would
    >>prefer a different format.
    >>
    >>Regards,
    >>
    >>Scott
    ______________________________________________
    >> Scott Rutherford
    >>
    >>Marine Research Scientist
    >>Graduate School of Oceanography
    >>University of Rhode Island

  7. Jimchip Says:

    1059762275.txt

    From: Tim Osborn
    To: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: Re: reconstruction errors
    Date: Fri Aug 1 14:24:35 2003

    Thanks very much for helping me out with this Mike. Rest assured that the data won’t be
    passed on to anyone else…

    I repeat from 6.5: Mann to Tim related to sequence end July into August. Probably applies to Section 7 also.

    Tim,
    Attached are the calibration residual series for experiments based on available networks
    back to:
    AD 1000
    AD 1400
    AD 1600
    I can’t find the one for the network back to 1820!

  8. Jimchip Says:

    1062189235.txt Osborn can’t assess uncertainities from Mann’s pubs.
    A second reason is that I wanted to be able to model (i.e., stochastically generate) time series of the errors, with appropriate timescale characteristics. Again, I didn’t think that I could get this from your published results.

    From: Tim Osborn
    To: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: reconstruction uncertainties
    Date: Fri Aug 29 16:33:55 2003
    Cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk
    Attachments: Mann uncertainty.doc

    Hi Mike,

    after a few bits of holiday here and there, I’ve now had time to complete my (initial) approach to estimating reconstruction errors on your NH temperature reconstruction. This is all based on the calibration residuals that you kindly sent me a few weeks ago.

    My rationale for doing this was that I wanted uncertainty/error estimates that were dependent on the time scale being considered (e.g. a decadal mean, an annual mean, a 30-year mean, etc.). I didn’t think you had published timescale-dependent errors, hence my attempt.

    A second reason is that I wanted to be able to model (i.e., stochastically generate) time series of the errors, with appropriate timescale characteristics. Again, I didn’t think that I could get this from your published results.

    The attached document summarises the progress I’ve made. There are a few questions I have, and I’m concerned that the reduction in uncertainty with increasing time scale is too great. Perhaps one should be ultra conservative and have no reduction with time scale? Yet surely there ought to be some cancelling of partly uncorrelated errors? The document is not meant to form part of any paper on this (I hope to use the errors in a paper, but the point of the paper is on trend detection, not estimating errors), it just seemed appropriate to write it up like this to inform you of what I’ve done so far.

    Any comments or criticisms will be very useful.

    Cheers

    Tim

  9. Jimchip Says:

    Not an email. Santer at the dendrolistserve ITRDBFOR. Does he really believe this stuff?

    From: Ben Santer=
    Date: Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 4:58 PM
    Subject: Open letter to the climate science community
    http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0912&L=itrdbfor&T=0&P=391

  10. Jimchip Says:

    For contrast to CRU practice, David M. Lawrence
    http://fuzzo.com/ghcn/ has windows program for extracting GHCN data first referenced in http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0307&L=itrdbfor&T=0&P=1019
    Wed, 23 Jul 2003

  11. Jimchip Says:

    1083962092.txt Phil refusing Steve Mc Data

    From: Phil Jones
    To: Scott Rutherford
    Subject: RoG Data
    Date: Fri May 7 16:34:52 2004
    Cc: “Michael E. Mann”

    Scott and Mike,

    It’s been a long week catching up from 3 weeks away. Getting another email from
    McIntyre asking me for paleo data series I don’t have (I’m not going to reply, by the way
    even though he calls me Phil and other emails he sends me are to Dr Crowley and Dr.
    Briffa who’ve also not replied) reminded me that I agreed with Mike to put together as
    many of the series from the RoG paper onto a page on the CRU web site.
    So, with this in mind, can you send me the data for the various plots. I checked the
    paper and Fig 1 doesn’t need anything, so this leave Figs 3 (on the boreholes), 5 (with
    the various NH/SH/Global series) and 8 (with all the various model runs).
    Figure 3 should be trivial as borehole data are only every 50 years. For the other
    2 plots
    I’m after the annual values of each series and the smoothed ones that get plotted. Hope
    this
    won’t take too long to do. I’m going to send emails to a few people to check we can make
    the
    data available (mainly the modellers, but also Tas van Ommen).
    Cheers
    Phil

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: