What's The Meto Got To Hide?

[Methuselah]

Maybe it isn't agreeing this time. If it does and we have the data to verify that previously, why such an issue?

This is very suspicious indeed and could have massive implications if it showed not what IPCC and govts want.

BFTP

So, you are fully prepared to post ALL your data and methods, all your hard work, on Net-weather, free of charge, so that anyone and everyone can do what they like with it, are you?

Because I wouldn't!

[MR EXTREMES]

So, you are fully prepared to post ALL your data and methods, all your hard work, on Net-weather, free of charge, so that anyone and everyone can do what they like with it, are you?

Because I wouldn't!

i think it should be shown purely because our climate effects ever person on planet earth its important that hard evidence is shown all the time. climate is important part of human nature im not saying it could be rubbish data totally going against the global warming trend,

but we dont know.

[Thundery wintry showers]

If it doesn't, do you have a link showing this?

My understanding is that most aspects of the Hadley/CRU climate data are actually freely available, for instance you can get a lot of it here:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/

The problem seems to be the availability of the original climate data used to generate the series. This strikes me as being more an issue with the producers of the original data requesting that the MetO and Prof. Jones withhold the data from general public consumption, so perhaps it's more them that the questions should be being aimed at. I can't give a strong opinion on whether they are right to request that their data is withheld as I don't know what arguments they are using (I only know that the MetO has agreed with them to do so). Perhaps some of the data comes from organisations that have commercial uses, some might be affiliated with the MetO itself.

The Met Office due to its ties with the Ministry of Defence does have some fairly tight security obligations, but unless I've misinterpreted the initial exchanges, I doubt that this is really relevant to the problem.

Edited July 25, 2009 by Thundery wintry showers

[Solar Cycles]

So, you are fully prepared to post ALL your data and methods, all your hard work, on Net-weather, free of charge, so that anyone and everyone can do what they like with it, are you?

Because I wouldn't!

Geez, what is with some of you? For those who still don't get it, the MetO is publically funded by the taxpayer. Individuals are not, so should the MetO with hold data, which the taxpayer has a legal right to view.? IMO and the vast majority of law abiding tax paying citizens, the answer is NO!

[Methuselah]

Geez, what is with some of you? For those who still don't get it, the MetO is publically funded by the taxpayer. Individuals are not, so should the MetO with hold data, which the taxpayer has a legal right to view.? IMO and the vast majority of law abiding tax paying citizens, the answer is NO!

And if they only hold that information on licence from those who've produced it, then what? Do they break the terms of their agreements?

[noggin]

1) We are being taxed in the name of "climate change".

2) Our behaviour is being modified/curtailed by politicians in the name of "climate change".

3) An ever-growing number of scientists are now questioning the previous "consensus" (I use the word loosely).

Any one of the above points makes it reasonable for us to be entitled to the see the requested information. Having all three points makes the witholding of the information open to accusations of "they are hiding something".

Edited July 25, 2009 by noggin

[Solar Cycles]

And if they only hold that information on licence from those who've produced it, then what? Do they break the terms of their agreements?

That's a very weak argument to put forward, more so, because this doesn't appear to be the case. What is it with warmists, what as to happen for you to start asking questions about your masters?

[Thundery wintry showers]

Again, see my post above and also the one by Pete Tattum after it.

The problem is that they are contracted to hold the data on licence with the people they get it from- so surely you're directing the flak at the wrong group of people?

SC, you say that this doesn't appear to be the case- evidence please?

And I am fully capable of criticising the MetO and related organisations btw- I criticised their latest video on climate change for example, but I also stick up for them when I feel they are being criticised unfairly.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Remember there was more than one stated reason why the FOI was declined TWS. Read the letter. If it was just the reason you stated, why mention all three?

I bet if a scientist carrying out genuine research asked for the data he'd get it no trouble

No explanation either, nor an excuse even if it were a motivation. McIntyre is a scientist, published in major scientific journals - heck, he was cited in IPCC AR4. There really is no excuse and nowhere to hide. Give him the raw data, let's see how it measures up.

This has nothing to do with the tax payer. If the data is not public and open to verification by an independent party it cannot be science.

[Methuselah]

That's a very weak argument to put forward, more so, because this doesn't appear to be the case. What is it with warmists, what as to happen for you to start asking questions about your masters?

I have no masters, solar. And, neither am I a 'warmist'. Whatever a 'warmist' is meant to be?

But, anyway you need tone-down the empty rhetoric; it's getting tiresome...Some of us are trying to hold an adult discussion.

So, why don't YOU do the asking for yourself?

1) We are being taxed in the name of "climate change".

2) Our behaviour is being modified/curtailed by politicians in the name of "climate change".

3) An ever-growing number of scientists are now questioning the previous "consensus" (I use the word loosely).

Any one of the above points makes it reasonable for us to be entitled to the see the requested information. Having all three points makes the witholding of the information open to accusations of "they are hiding something".

It's an argument I can see both side of, noggin. I want to see the data; but, if I were in those scientists' positions, would I simply hand it over?

And, not being in that position, I cannot even answer my own question.

[Thundery wintry showers]

OK let's go over the three reasons in full:

• Section 12 (5) (a) Information likely to prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and any International organisation;

Implication: some of the info comes from international organisations and that offering it freely might offset the relationship between the UK and said international organisations.

• Section 12 (5) (e) Confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest.

Implication: the data is provided confidentially to the MetO to not be freely shared in the economic interests of the companies providing it.

• Section 12 (5) (f) (i) (iii) The supplier was not under legal obligation to supply the information and has not consented to its disclosure.

Implication: the supplier of the data has not given the MetO consent to offer it to the public for free and has no legal obligation to do so.

Surely all three points thus come under what I've been describing?

Like Pete I don't really have a strong view on the moral rights and wrongs of this, as I, too, am not one of the scientists that provides the data in the first place and do not know their arguments for asking the MetO to hold the information.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

But, anyway you need tone-down the empty rhetoric; it's getting tiresome...Some of us are trying to hold an adult discussion.

This is being most unfair to Solar Cycles.

Imagine this from the perspective of a non-meteorologist.

I don't have UK figures to hand, but in the United States, since 1989, $79 billion has been sunk into Climate Science research. That's a lot of money.

Historians or sports scientists could have spent $79 billion of taxpayers money on computer models if they had the opportunity.

Now, in the UK which has also funded climate science heavily, we have taxpayer funded institutions refusing to be open about their scientific methods, contrary to principles of science.

Why do they deserve our respect and our funding? Is this not a fair question an adult should ask?

I'm sorry, Solar Cycles is not being childish. His frustrations are appropriate in this situation, and many other non-meteorologist scientists, businessmen and academics are frustrated with him.

-----

TWS - GISS could have made the same excuses but eventually they opened their code to McIntyre. There really is no excuse in my opinion, as someone on the outside looking at Climate Science.

Edited July 25, 2009 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

A 'closed shop' can be set up and a suitably legislative framework can be attached to it to protect it, but we can still ask why such confidentiality is required in the first place to require those clauses to be drawn up and met.

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

Confidentiality isnt just about hiding something, it can be protecting ones work rights after much work. It can be about protecting ones methods.

Take it into the context of general confidentiality, and its not about hiding something, but about protecting something.

[Solar Cycles]

I have no masters, solar. And, neither am I a 'warmist'. Whatever a 'warmist' is meant to be?

But, anyway you need tone-down the empty rhetoric; it's getting tiresome...Some of us are trying to hold an adult discussion.

So, why don't YOU do the asking for yourself?

It's an argument I can see both side of, noggin. I want to see the data; but, if I were in those scientists' positions, would I simply hand it over?

And, not being in that position, I cannot even answer my own question.

An adult conversation! Empty rhetoric! Ask for yourself! So net weather is now becoming a closed shop is it? Thought this was a forum, looks like if your views upset the warmists, they throw their toys out of their prams. I make no apologies for pursuing this matter, IMO this as set science back 20 years, were now we are told to believe in our masters, and not to question their actions! I'm so sorry I dare to think for myself, maybe I should do what the rest of you warmists do, and let others think for me!!!!

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

A second FOI has been refused.

Another excuse.

Request

Dear Mr Palmer,

Pursuant to the Environmental Information Regulations, I hereby request a copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and Jun 25, 2009.

Thank you for your attention,

Stephen McIntyre

Response

Dear Mr McIntyre

ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REGULATIONS 2004 – INFORMATION REQUEST (FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03)

Your request for information received on 26 June 2009 has now been considered and it is, unfortunately, not possible to meet all of your request.

In accordance with Regulation 14 of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 this letter acts as a partial Refusal Notice, and I am not obliged to supply this information and the reasons for exemption are as stated below:

Exception Reason

Reg. 12(5)(f) – Adverse effect on the person providing information

Information is covered by a confidentiality agreement

Regulation 12(5)(f) applies because the information requested was received by the University on terms that prevent further transmission to non-academics

Regulation 12(1)( mandates that we consider the public interest in any decision to release or refuse information under Regulation 12(4). In this case, we feel that there is a strong public interest in upholding contract terms governing the use of received information. To not do so would be to potentially risk the loss of access to such data in future.

I apologise that not all of your request will be met but if you have any further information needs in the future then please contact me.

If you have any queries or concerns, or, if you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request please contact me at:

University of East Anglia

Norwich

NR4 7TJ

Telephone: 0160 393 523

E-mail: foi AT uea.ac.uk

You also have the right of appeal against the decision. If you wish to appeal please set out in writing your grounds of appeal and send to me at the same address as noted above.

Subsequent to our determination of your appeal, you also have a further right of appeal to the Information Commissioner at:

Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Telephone: 01625 545 700

www.ico.gov.uk

Yours sincerely

David Palmer

Information Policy and Compliance Manager

University of East Anglia

[Methuselah]

Confidentiality isnt just about hiding something, it can be protecting ones work rights after much work. It can be about protecting ones methods.

Take it into the context of general confidentiality, and its not about hiding something, but about protecting something.

It's just such a shame that, in today's easy-come, easy-go society, too many folks equate 'I want' with 'I have a right to have'. Especially, it seems, when the object of the wanting relates to others' intellectual property.

And yes, the constant throwing of petty insults, whether 'coolist', 'warmist' or whatever, by anyone, is childish. It adds nothing to the debate.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Confidentiality isnt just about hiding something, it can be protecting ones work rights after much work. It can be about protecting ones methods.

Take it into the context of general confidentiality, and its not about hiding something, but about protecting something.

But if we can't see the details of that work because of the 'protectionism', then it leads one to wonder about the methodologies...and it leads one to wonder what there is to hide.

This is about science - it is information that should be freely available to all. These same people bang on about how we should 'act now to save our climate' but apparently need 'protecting' in terms of the detail of the same findings that lead them to tell us how to run our lives in order to prepare for all these assumed climate changes!! It should be in public, national, institutional, global interest. If the science adds up to it, then what is the big deal about everyone knowing!?

Or, does it came back to the need for 'protecting something' because there is something that we shouldn't know??

Edited July 25, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Methuselah]

An adult conversation! Empty rhetoric! Ask for yourself! So net weather is now becoming a closed shop is it? Thought this was a forum, looks like if your views upset the warmists, they throw their toys out of their prams. I make no apologies for pursuing this matter, IMO this as set science back 20 years, were now we are told to believe in our masters, and not to question their actions! I'm so sorry I dare to think for myself, maybe I should do what the rest of you warmists do, and let others think for me!!!!

Solar, calm down. 'Warmists, 'masters', 'closed shops', 'toys and prams'? What does any of that have to do with whatever the MetO may or may not be hiding? Nothing! That is my point.

Just because not everyone agrees with you doesn't give them the right to label you a 'coolist' or a 'Right Wing Conspiratorialist' or accuse you of cow-towing to the gas-company lobby, does it? And, I guess you wouldn't like it one bit if they did, either!

You're right though. This is a forum...It's not a mud-slinging competition!

[Gowon]

Nme='Pete Tattum' date='25 July 2009 - 18:26 ' timestamp='1248542771' post='1571297']

It's just such a shame that, in today's easy-come, easy-go society, too many folks equate 'I want' with 'I have a right to have'. Especially, it seems, when the object of the wanting relates to others' intellectual property.

And yes, the constant throwing of petty insults, whether 'coolist', 'warmist' or whatever, by anyone, is childish. It adds nothing to the debate.

[Devonian]

But if we can't see the details of that work because of the 'protectionism', then it leads one to wonder about the methodologies...and it leads one to wonder what there is to hide.

Why shouldn't I be suspicious of you because you protect your identity? What have YOU to hide? And all those other who act in a similar way.

This is about science - it is information that should be freely available to all. These same people bang on about how we should 'act now to save our climate' but apparently need 'protecting' in terms of the detail of the same findings that lead them to tell us how to run our lives in order to prepare for all these assumed climate changes!! It should be in public, national, institutional, global interest. If the science adds up to it, then what is the big deal about everyone knowing!?

Or, does it came back to the need for 'protecting something' because there is something that we shouldn't know??

Demanding openness from the cover of anonymity has always struck me as, at best, pretty odd.

[laserguy]

What I object to is having one penny of my taxes over the years being diverted to anyone investigating an entirely natural process,and all the while trying to kid everyone that they've found a villain in CO2,and by changing everything about the way we live our lives they can solve this non-problem. In all seriousness,I want a refund. All that money that could have been put to good use - wasted.

[Solar Cycles]

Why shouldn't I be suspicious of you because you protect your identity? What have YOU to hide? And all those other who act in a similar way.

Demanding openness from the cover of anonymity has always struck me as, at best, pretty odd.

I give up with all you pro- AGW members ( is that better Pete ), What don't you understand regarding the words public and body? Again, I'll try and explain. The MetO are funded by taxpayers, and like all public services, are held acountable for their actions. Now why should they be exempt, are they above accountabilty? What as been requested is not rocket science, so please can any one of the pro camp, tell me why they should be exempt!

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

It's just such a shame that, in today's easy-come, easy-go society, too many folks equate 'I want' with 'I have a right to have'.

If we paid for it, surely we do have a right to have it. Don't you agree? If it was a private company, and the research was paid for by shareholders, I could understand your concern, but the facts of the case is, it's not.

And yes, the constant throwing of petty insults, whether 'coolist', 'warmist' or whatever, by anyone, is childish. It adds nothing to the debate.

Please stop calling people you disagree with "childish". They may be young enough to be your child, hey they may even be a child!, but that doesn't mean they should be intimidated from criticising a taxpayer funded research institution if it is not making its taxpayer funded research public.

There is little commercial value to the raw data McIntyre requested, and any value it has comes from the millions of pounds of our money, accrued from all the many taxes, including green taxes we now pay, invested in it.

[Solar Cycles]

If we paid for it, surely we do have a right to have it. Don't you agree? If it was a private company, and the research was paid for by shareholders, I could understand your concern, but the facts of the case is, it's not.

Please stop calling people you disagree with "childish". They may be young enough to be your child, hey they may even be a child!, but that doesn't mean they should be intimidated from criticising a taxpayer funded research institution if it is not making its taxpayer funded research public.

There is little commercial value to the raw data McIntyre requested, and any value it has comes from the millions of pounds of our money, accrued from all the many taxes, including green taxes we now pay, invested in it.

Don't worry Atlanticflamethrower, I'm not easily itimidated, trust me! I can't see why they are defending the MetO in this instance, but I will be seeing my local MP, to see why they are with holding information.