Section 7 Responses

7. The keeping of accurate records of datasets, algorithms and software used in the analysis of climate data.  A key concern expressed by a number of correspondents and commentators has been as to whether datasets, and analyses based thereon, were deleted.

See specific questions but this topic need not  be confined to “deleted”. If data were lost or otherwise is unavailable then that is an appropriate comment topic. The Harry_Readme file will be included although it is ‘non-email’.

Advertisements

One Response to “Section 7 Responses”

  1. jimchip Says:

    [Repeated as background for Section 6, Sec. 8. I’ll part these out to specific questions later]

    Archiving
    http://climateaudit.org/category/archiving/ and specific CA topics

    Sciencemag Enforces Data Archiving
    http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/03/kaufman-data/

    NAS Report on Data and Methods Disclosure by RomanM
    http://climateaudit.org/2009/08/20/nas-report-on-data-and-methods-disclosure/

    Jeff Id’s post re NAS Archiving:
    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/08/20/nas-provides-recommendations-for-public-data-access/#more-5034

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

    Under the “Can’t depend on Journals” category:
    Glenn McGregor: Data Archiving not required by the International Journal of Climatology
    http://climateaudit.org/2008/12/28/no-data-archiving-at-the-international-journal-of-climatology/

    Another Brick in the Wall: Covers multiple relevant topics: Data Witholding, FOIA, Data Reporting
    http://climateaudit.org/2008/12/07/another-brick-in-the-wall/

    Santer Refuses Data Request
    http://climateaudit.org/2008/11/10/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)
    http://climateaudit.org/2008/07/30/has-briffa-encountered-a-real-science-magazine/
    (Jul 30, 2008)

    CSIRO adopts Phil Jones’ Stonewall Tactic
    http://climateaudit.org/2008/07/15/csiro-adopts-phil-jones-stonewall-policy/

    Climate Audit and NOAA FOI Policy
    http://climateaudit.org/2008/07/03/climate-audit-and-noaa-foi-policy/

    Fortress CRU
    http://climateaudit.org/2008/06/20/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
    http://climateaudit.org/2008/05/30/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
    http://climateaudit.org/2007/10/03/a-first-look-at-the-cru-station-list/

    Rob Wilson Archives Data [Thank you, Dr. Wilson :)]
    http://climateaudit.org/2007/07/30/rob-wilson-archives-data/

    Recent Cicerone discussion may need context (maybe not for CCE)
    Cicerone of NAS Acquiesces in Data Obstruction (Jul 30, 2007)
    http://climateaudit.org/2007/07/30/cicerone-of-nas-refuses-to-require-thompson-to-archive-data/

    Some Prompt Data Responses Jun 14, 2007
    http://climateaudit.org/2007/06/14/some-prompt-data-responses/

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: