CRUT email 1248902393.txt NCDC Chums

Are NCDC and CRU really independent?

From 1248902393.txt where there is a letter from Phil Jones to Thomas Peterson quoting an earlier letter from Peterson to Phil. Some uninteresting bits were removed (marked by […] )

From: Phil Jones

To: Thomas.C.Peterson@noaa.gov
Subject: Re: This and that
Date: Wed Jul 29 17:19:53 2009

Tom,
[…]
At 17:07 29/07/2009, you wrote:

Hi, Phil,
Yes, Friday-Saturday I noticed that ClimateFraudit had renewed their
interest in you. I was thinking about sending an email of sympathy, but
I was busy preparing for a quick trip to Hawaii – I left Monday morning
and flew out Tuesday evening and am now in the Houston airport on my way
home.
Data that we can’t release is a tricky thing here at NCDC. Periodically,
Tom Karl will twist my arm to release data that would violate agreements
and therefore hurt us in the long run, so I would prefer that you don’t
specifically cite me or NCDC in this.

So here we see that NCDC is in bed with Phil. Nice chummy “insider code” between them with the hacked name for the site they don’t like (one presumes http://climateaudit.org/ ).

We also see that NCDC is unwilling / unable to release some data as well. Then he askes for anonymity… Okay… When relationships can’t stand the light of day (even if only because it would put pressure on them to release data they have agreed to keep secret) it is a bit disconcerting…

So much for NCDC being “independent”…

The Undiscovered Data

A bit further down:

So far as far as I know, we have all lived up to that
agreement – myself with the Caribbean data (so that is one example of
data I have that are not released by NCDC), Lucie and Malcolm for South
America, Enric for Central America, Xuebin for Middle Eastern data,
Albert for south/central Asian data, John Ceasar for SE Asia, Enric
again for central Africa, etc. The point being that such agreements are
common and are the only way that we have access to quantitative insights
into climate change in many parts of the world. Many countries don’t
mind the release of derived products such as your gridded field or
Xuebin’s ETCCDI indices, but very much object to the release of actual
data (which they might sell to potential users). Does that help?

So the world is going to spend a few trillion in part because some Banana Republic might want to make a few bucks off of the raw data…

Ooh Kaayy… But we do get a nice list of who most likely cooked each continent / country…

But at least the IPCC is an independent Agent, Right?

Then we get this nice chummy exchange fishing for an appointment:

Regarding AR4, I would like to be part of it. I have no idea what role
would be deemed appropriate. One thing I noticed with the CLAs in my
old chapter is that if one isn’t up to doing his part (too busy, or a
different concept of timeliness, or …) it can make for a difficult
job. You and I have worked well together before (e.g., GSN) so I’d be
delighted to work with you on it and I know you’d hold up your side of
the tasks. We touched on this briefly at the AOPC meeting. If I get an
opportunity, I would say yes.
But I also don’t know what the U.S. IPCC nominating approach would be or
even who decides that. There is an upcoming IPCC report on extremes and
impacts of extremes and I wasn’t privy to any insights into the U.S.
nominations other than when it was over it was announced in NCDC staff
notes that the nominations had been made. However, Kumar had earlier
asked if he could nominate me, so he did (I provided him with the details).
Regards,
Tom

And we again get confirmation that these folks ‘work well together’… and like to pat each other on the back via getting each other appointed to authority positions. So exactly how can NCDC be “independent” of UEA CRU when they are working so “hand in sock puppet” together?

The MIssing Data and The Leaked Emails / data files

Then Phil responds

Tom,

If you look on Climate Audit you will see that I’m all over it!
Our ftp site is regularly trawled as I guess yours is. It seems that
a Canadian along with two Americans copied some files we put there
for MOHC in early 2003. So saying they have the CRU data is not
quite correct. What they have is our raw data for CRUTEM2 which
went into Jones and Moberg (2003) – data through end of 2002.
Anyway enough of my problems – I have a question for you. I’m
going to write a small document for our web site to satisfy (probably the
wrong word) the 50 or so FOI/EIR requests we’ve had over the weekend.
I will put up the various agreements we have with Met Services.

Two things here. First, they had Raw Data through the year 2002 in the year 2003. So much for that “lost the data in the 1980’s building move” story. Now I don’t know what the nuance is between CRU and CRUTEM2, but clearly they didn’t lose everything.

Second, they put FOI/EIR request data on their web server. Yes, the same kind of FOI request that the FOIA “leaked” file seems to be. And the same web server they shut down after the leak. My take on this is that someone messed up the permissions in an FOIA file they were preparing for a request, and it got released when they thought they were locking it down (after the request was denied.) That “hacking” story is just too lame.

Then:

But at least the IPCC is independent, right?

The question – I think you told me one time that you had a file
containing all the data you couldn’t release (i.e. it’s not in GHCN). Presumably
this is not in your gridded datasets? Do you know off hand how much
data is in this category? Would NCDC mind if I mentioned that you
have such data – not the amount/locations/anything, just that there is some?

And not only do NCDC have the (substantially duplicate) same data as CRUT, they have some secret sauce data too…

Then follows a chummy discussion of who ought to cook what part of the IPCC report. Again we find that the IPCC is NOT independent of CRU nor of NCDC. They are all in bed with each other. Phil deciding what part of the IPCC AR5 report he want to write. Soliciting to find out if NCDC wants to write a chunk.

On something positive – attached is the outlines for the proposed Chs in AR5/WG1.
Ch1 is something Thomas thinks he can write himself – well with Qin Dahe, so
only 13 chapters. There are a lot of issues with overlaps between some of the
data chapters 2 with 3, 2 with 5 and 2 with 14.
I’m still thinking about whether to get involved. It would be 2 if I decide. At the
moment I’d say yes, but I might change my mind tomorrow! Nominations are
from Nov09 thru Jan10 with the selection made in April 10. Are you considering
getting involved?

And then it gets nicely juicy. A tiny conspiracy to figure out how to shield Phil and “others” from FOI requests with the collusion of the IPCC.

I have got the IPCC Secretariat and Thomas to raise the FOI issues with
the full IPCC Plenary, which meets in Bali in September or October. Thomas
is fully aware of all the issues we’ve had here wrt Ch 6 last time, and others in
the US have had.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ

Oh. I guess not…