Meto Update: Scientist Acquires Raw Station Data

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Good question.

Active in a related field via a university or associated body (so, for climate, active at say a relevant university (Reading, UEA or Manchester come to mind) or working for the Met O, or in the US say NOAA), or originator of original research (so phd or similar).

So if you're not in a "related field" you cannot question the work of that field? But then the question is when the disciplines overlap, there must be a valid academic reason for academics of other fields to access the information.

Ross McKitrick is an economist. McIntyre is a geologist. Both are published scientists in academic journals. They are not permitted to have access to climate data?

Or, published in peer reviewed media (with the more work published the greater credibility - McIntrye has one paper I think).

He had a letter published in this month's edition of Nature. His photo's in it.

As far as peer-reviewed papers, I don't have a list but it's more than one.

McIntyre, S. and R. McKitrick (2003). "Corrections to the Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series". Energy and Environment 14 (6): 751-771. http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf

Mcintyre, S. and R. McKitrick (2005). "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance". Geophysical Research Letters 32 (3).

He may have more. His wikipage is not a comprehensive source.

I don't think being a retired mining engineer and blog owner qualifies someone to speak with authority about climate. If it does then I'm similarly qualified and could set up a blog and, bingo, I become a world climate expert???

You repeat your one-liner. That does not dismiss him. He has the academic credentials of a published, peer-reviewed scientist, and, like Professor Phil Jones, has been well-regarded among other academics to have been cited by the IPCC.

[Solar Cycles]

Have you dropped Mr McIntyre an email to ask? You're making a lot of accusations and allegations based on "impressions" and "strong suspicions". I don't believe either of those things stand up in court.

You're putting words into my mouth. I've not engaged in this debate.

Again, I don't consider that you are attacking me with this sentence. It's weird reading it.

It seems AFT, that straw men only apply to us skeptics. As soon as anything untoward is said about a warmists, then the same old cliches are spouted from the same old people. Mr Mcintyre as done science a big favour, by showing up errors, which are then corrected. Now can someone please tell me, what is wrong with that?

[Devonian]

So if you're not in a "related field" you cannot question the work of that field? But then the question is when the disciplines overlap, there must be a valid academic reason for academics of other fields to access the information.

Ross McKitrick is an economist. McIntyre is a geologist. Both are published scientists in academic journals. They are not permitted to have access to climate data?

They are permitted to look at data, but not data restricted by previous agreements.

Nor do I think either a geologist or a economist are climatologists - Dr Mann doesn't try to tell geologist how to do their jobs...

He had a letter published in this month's edition of Nature. His photo's in it.

As far as peer-reviewed papers, I don't have a list but it's more than one.

McIntyre, S. and R. McKitrick (2003). "Corrections to the Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series". Energy and Environment 14 (6): 751-771. http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf

Mcintyre, S. and R. McKitrick (2005). "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance". Geophysical Research Letters 32 (3).

He may have more. His wikipage is not a comprehensive source.

You repeat your one-liner. That does not dismiss him. He has the academic credentials of a published, peer-reviewed scientist, and, like Professor Phil Jones, has been well-regarded among other academics to have been cited by the IPCC.

Energy and Environment is not a serious scientific journal.

[Solar Cycles]

They are permitted to look at data, but not data restricted by previous agreements.

Nor do I think either a geologist or a economist are climatologists - Dr Mann doesn't try to tell geologist how to do their jobs...

Energy and Environment is not a serious scientific journal.

Well a geologist would certainly know far more about past climate and causes, than a climate scientist!

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

They are permitted to look at data, but not data restricted by previous agreements.

Discussion on this is now mute. The data is out and getting published.

Nor do I think either a geologist or a economist are climatologists

What is a paleoclimatologist?

Disciplines overlap.

There is no valid reason for McIntyre or McKitrick to have access to the raw feed from the Great Hadron Collider at CERN, even though M&M are academics, like the nuclear physicists. The reason why they don't is because nuclear physics does not have implications for geological reading of history, or the economy.

Climatology has an implication for both. Climatologists assert implications of the climate for our reading of geological history and the economy. The data should be opened to other academics who request it because the data impacts their work.

Energy and Environment is not a serious scientific journal.

So anything that appears in "Energy and Environment" is to be dismissed. That is arrogant and fallacious reasoning.

[Devonian]

Well a geologist would certainly know far more about past climate and causes, than a climate scientist!

Yeah, that's why geologists are called geologists and climatologist climatologists - obviously they're the same thing. Indeed, geologists (obviously) are more climatologists than climatologists

[Solar Cycles]

Yeah, that's why geologists are called geologists and climatologist climatologists - obviously they're the same thing. Indeed, geologists (obviously) are more climatologists than climatologists

Dear dear, it appears that you are blinded by your own misguided beliefs!

[Devonian]

Discussion on this is now mute. The data is out and getting published.

What is a paleoclimatologist?

Disciplines overlap.

There is no valid reason for McIntyre or McKitrick to have access to the raw feed from the Great Hadron Collider at CERN, even though M&M are academics, like the nuclear physicists. The reason why they don't is because nuclear physics does not have implications for geological reading of history, or the economy.

Climatology has an implication for both. Climatologists assert implications of the climate for our reading of geological history and the economy. The data should be opened to other academics who request it because the data impacts their work.

Data is open to other academics - indeed, as you say, data is available.

So anything that appears in "Energy and Environment" is to be dismissed. That is arrogant and fallacious reasoning.

I said it's not a serious journal - it's not. No libraries stock it, no universities. It's little better than blog science made paper.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Devonian

[Solar Cycles]

Dear dear, it appears that you are blinded by your own misguided beliefs!

Maybe you should look up the job discription, of a geologist Dev!

[Devonian]

Dear dear, it appears that you are blinded by your own misguided beliefs!

Sometimes, SC, I do genuinely wonder if you're for real. The next thing you'll have me believe is that doctors have more to say about teeth than dentists

[Solar Cycles]

Sometimes, SC, I do genuinely wonder if you're for real. The next thing you'll have me believe is that doctors have more to say about teeth than dentists

Ok you can only show an horse the water. Maybe if you look at what a geologist actually does, and as done, long before they made up climate science, then you can debate it! Until then, you carry on in your warmists little world!

Ok you can only show an horse the water. Maybe if you look at what a geologist actually does, and as done, long before they made up climate science, then you can debate it! Until then, you carry on in your warmists little world!

Then you will find that they know far far more about earths past climate history, than any warmists scientist. Now for me, that puts them on the same level as someone from a science, that is 30 years old!

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

I said it's not a serious journal - it's not. No libraries stock it, no universities. It's little better than blog science made paper.

You are making things up and spreading falsehoods. There is no other response I can think of to counter this comical reply which I believe must have been intended as a joke.

Of course, having proclaimed McIntyre only had one published peer-reviewed work you would like to dismiss "Energy and Environment" as a complete irrelevance, that is produced in the back of a garage.

It is a new journal that has yet to achieve "brand" status. But whether the journal is or is not an established brand is not the point: it's what the article says that matters.

Scientists do not sneer at work because they have not heard of the name of the journal before.

Anyway, you admit to at least one publication, and do not contradict my claim McIntyre was cited by the IPCC, so your suggestion he is not an academic is groundless.

Edited August 13, 2009 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Paul]

Please folks, let's keep this civil and on topic...

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Thanks, Paul. I'm sorry your intervention has been required. I think we should be more careful not to say things we know will deliberately wind people up. I've been guilty of that in the past.

Treading on carefully, on the issue of the confidentiality agreements it seems the crucial issue on which the data was withheld from McIntyre was the suggestion he was a non-academic. Please read the link where the agreements are quoted. The confidentiality agreements seem to apply only to non-academics.

Let's broaden the issue here to Ross McKitrick, who is a non-retired working economics academic at a university in Canada. He requested the data and was turned away, presumably because he was a "non-academic." So presumably those who withheld the data from him did so because he was an academic in what they considered to be an unrelated discipline.

I think that's questionable but we can move on. The data is being made public so there is no reason to argue now. Let's all speculate about what's in the data instead.

Edited August 13, 2009 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Chris Knight]

The data is being made public so there is no reason to argue now. Let's all speculate about what's in the data instead.

Let's not speculate. The data was public or available to all who knew how to FTP the CRU server, it is not now, due to the intense publicity this stunt has generated. Are we richer or poorer now?

[Methuselah]

Everyone involved in this 'discussion' needs to calm down! There is too-much blog-inspired mud-slinging going on.

And, as Chris points out above...The only 'achievement' so far, is that there is now LESS data freely available than there was before???

[Devonian]

Ok you can only show an horse the water. Maybe if you look at what a geologist actually does, and as done, long before they made up climate science, then you can debate it! Until then, you carry on in your warmists little world!

We can talk geology if you like? I am a 'geoligista'.

Then you will find that they know far far more about earths past climate history, than any warmists scientist. Now for me, that puts them on the same level as someone from a science, that is 30 years old!

Evidence please, not statements.

[Solar Cycles]

We can talk geology if you like? I am a 'geoligista'.

Evidence please, not statements.

Evidence for what? Look up job description for geology

As for climate science, well it's in it's infancy, 30 years and they know it all hey!

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Refusing Ross McKitrick

Today brought in some CRU refusals- their rejections of Ross Mc, Roman M, myself. (They're going to have to re-do their Roger Pielke rejection, since they replied to the wrong request in his case.) Each one deserves to be savored. So today I'll post up their obstruction of Ross McKitrick.

FOI officer Palmer denied the request on the grounds that the request is "manifestly unreasonable" as the data is "available elsewhere", that its disclosure would have an "adverse effect on international relations" and would have an adverse impact on the institutions supplying the data.

CA readers will recall that I requested the same version of CRU station data as was sent to Peter Webster and that they refused on the grounds that they had "confidentiality agreements" (all of which have been destroyed or lost other than stale agreements with Norway and Bahrain and and an agreement with Spain that does not require confidentiality) with parties that they can no longer identify, but the one thing that they were certain of was that these agreements prohibited the delivery of the data to a "non-academic".

Ross McKitrick is obviously an "academic". And aside from being an "academic", he even has relevant publications in the field. Here is Ross' original request:

These refusals are very odd indeed. Here was the request:

Pursuant to the Environmental Information Regulations, I hereby request:

1. 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 June 25, 2009

2. A copy of any instructions or stipulations accompanying the transmission of data to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009 limiting its further dissemination or disclosure.

I write as an academic with publications in peer-reviewed journals and an ongoing research program on the subject of surface climate measurement. With respect to #2, please be aware that restrictions on data disclosure may disqualify any research arising from this data set from being published in many peer-reviewed journals, therefore I require a complete response as to whether any such instructions accompanied the data.

Thank you for your attention,

Part of the reply

Exception Reason

Reg. 12(4)( – Request is manifestly unreasonable. Information is available elsewhere

Reg. 12(5)(a) – Adverse effect on international relations. Release would damage relations with scientists & institutions from other nations

Reg. 12(5)(f) – Adverse effect on the person providing information. Information is covered by a confidentiality agreement

Since these refusals actually came in today, what is the point of taking time to refuse data that is apparently going to be "let wild" sometime in the future on a website anyway? It seems all very petty.

[Methuselah]

Since these refusals actually came in today, what is the point of taking time to refuse data that is apparently going to be "let wild" sometime in the future on a website anyway? It seems all very petty.

So. Why doesn't the guy just wait a'while, eh? What's the hurry??

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

So. Why doesn't the guy just wait a'while, eh? What's the hurry??

The FOI requests were sent off weeks ago before it was announced the data was going to be provided free.

So yes, odd, petty behaviour, particularly to refuse fellow academics. Let's hope this chapter is out of the way within a week or so with the data being available on their website.

[noggin]

The next thing you'll have me believe is that doctors have more to say about teeth than dentists

Sometimes they do, but I won't bore people with my medical history. <_<