Sunday, 7 March 2010

SHOCK! HORROR! AGW deniers in lies and smears fiasco!

One reason given for the Climate Research Unit not meeting requests for its data set, made under the Freedom of Information Act, was that it did not actually own the data, as it doesn't actually own the weather stations that contribute data. While some of the institutions that compiled the raw data were happy for it to be reproduced by CRU, some were not, as per the New York Times:
But CRU has struggled to respond to numerous requests filed under Britain's Freedom of Information Act that seek raw temperature data from weather stations, including observations obtained from other countries under promise of confidentiality.

Jones said yesterday that CRU withheld raw data in part because "most scientists don't want to deal with raw station data, they want to deal with the derived product."

Some nations reluctant to release climate data

The University of East Anglia, with the assistance of the U.K. Met Office, is now trying to get countries that had provided weather station data under confidential agreements to release the information to the public.

So far, 58 of 170 meteorological services worldwide have given permission to do so, said Julia Slingo, the Met Office's chief scientist. Seven countries have said "no," including Canada, Russia, Poland and Sweden.

In some cases, Slingo said, "governments see this data as having commercial value" that may make them reluctant to make it available to the general public. (1)
In a (supposed) fresh twist, however, a institution calling itself the Stockholm Initiative For A Rational Climate Policy has called Jones a liar, claiming that no such restriction existed for the Swedish data. The english version is reproduced on
Climate scientist delivers false statement in parliament enquiry

It has come to our attention, that last Monday (March 1), Dr. Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU), in a hearing with the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee made a statement in regards to the alleged non-availability for disclosure of Swedish climate data.

Dr. Jones asserted that the weather services of several countries, including Sweden, Canada and Poland, had refused to allow their data to be released, to explain his reluctance to comply with Freedom of Information requests.

This statement is false and misleading in regards to the Swedish data.

All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain. As is demonstrated in the attached correspondence between SMHI (Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute), the UK Met Office and Dr. Jones (the last correspondence dated yesterday March 4), this has been clearly explained to Dr. Jones. What is also clear is that SMHI is reluctant to be connected to data that has undergone “processing” by the East Anglia research unit. (2)
Linked is a correspondence between Jones, the Met Office and the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute. Astonishingly Predictably, it completely contradicts the claims made for it by the Stockholm Initiative For A Rational Climate Policy.

('Rational' in the name of organisations dealing in climate change matters should be viewed with the same doubt as the term 'democratic' in the name of a country)

The first cache are straight forward requests from the Jones and the Met Office for permission to publish the data obtained from SMHI (3). The response to this is a rejection:
SMHI has in a letter, dated November 30, from UK MetOffice, received your request regarding the release of data from the HadCRUT dataset.

Given the information that the version of the data from the SMHI stations that you hold are likely to differ from the data we hold, SMHI do not want the data to be released on your web site. (4)
The third letter in the correspondence is a revision of SHMI's position, where they give provisional permission for CRU to publish the 'homogenised' data:
Our response was based on your information that it was likely that the version held by you would most likely differ from our current holdings. It has never been our intention to withhold any data but we feel that it is paramount that data that has undergone, for instance, homogenisation by anyone other than SMHI is not presented as SMHI data. We see no problem with publication of the data set together with a reference stating that the data included in the dataset is based on observations made by SMHI but it has undergone processing made by your research unit. We would also prefer a link to SMHI or to our web site where the original data can be obtained. (5)
Now, before anyone gets to excited about the 'homogenisation' appears to refer to Jones's statement in his letter that the data set would be combined with other data from other sources.

So until that letter was written, CRU had NO PERMISSION to publish the data received from SHMI - whether in the raw or 'homogenised' form. This letter gives permission for the publication of the 'homogenised' data, with attribution and a link to the original dataset at SHMI.

But - repeat - prior to that, there was no such permission for either raw or 'homogenised' data existed.

The date on the letter? 4th of March, 2010.
1 - "'Climategate' Scientist Admits 'Awful E-Mails,' but Peers Say IPCC Conclusions Remain Sound," by Lauren Morello. Published in The New York Times, 2nd of March, 2010. (
2 - "Climate scientist delivers false statement in parliament enquiry," unattributed press release by the Stockholm Initiative For A Rational Climate Policy. Reproduced on, 5th of March, 2010.(
3 - The link is to a pdf copy of the letters from the Met Office, dated the 30th of November, 2009, and from Phil Jones of CRU, undated, to the Swedish Metrological & Hydrological Institute. Reproduced on, 5th of March, 2010. (
4 - The link is to a pdf copy of a letter from Marcus Flarup of the Swedish Metrological and Hydrological Institute to Phil Jones, dated the 21st of December, 2009. (
5 - The link is to a pdf copy of a letter from Marcus Flarup of the Swedish Metrological and Hydrological Institute to Phil Jones, dated the 4th of March, 2010. Reproduced on, 5th of March, 2010. (

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

the authority you cite is a denier group, and its claims have been challenged.