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…

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in CRUt and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to CRUT email 1248902393.txt NCDC Chums

  1. Bishop Hill says:

    CRUTEM is the land surface records prepared and adjusted by CRU. These get combined with HADSST sea temps to make HADCRUT.

  2. MikeE says:

    Second, they put FOI/EIR request data on their web server.

    Data?

    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.

    More like a document saying why they cannot release the data, surely?

    Not saying that they didn’t also do what you suggest, but that’s not what is apparently said in this email.

    REPLY: [ You are quite correct. I was being sloppy and speaking generically to their process, that the web server is where “stuff” ends up. I ought to have said: “This email shows that the web server is where they place FOIA request responses, both documents and data, with this example being a document….” I may change it later. Right now I’ve got errands… -E.M.Smith ]

  3. boballab says:

    Mike E I’m not sure how much of the past history of the hockey stick and it’s debunking you are familiar with but if you go and read up on it you will find that is what happend. The data that Michael Mann didn’t want Steve McIntyre to have accidently showed up on a FTP server one day and it was found. Matter of fact that incident is mentioned in the emails about making sure that nothing shows up on a FTP server again.

  4. vigilantfish says:

    Nice work confirming what I’ve suspected and have been trying to tell colleagues. Bali? Hawaii? Amazing how they can’t seem to schedule conferences in places where weather happens – like Thunder Bay, Ontario. I guess they did not want to shatter their own delusions.

    REPLY: [ I have a sporadic fantasy that this leak will cause their travel budget to be trimmed. Want to see “Global Warming” moderate? REQUIRE that all meetings like this take place to minimize fuel usage. So 2 or 3 out of 4 years, the meeting is in Iceland. The other year you put the meeting at Christchurch New Zealand. Each to be held in the local winter (when hotel rates are lower ;-) -E.M.Smith ]

  5. Pingback: The Strata-Sphere » Confirmed: CRU Data Includes Raw Temp Data From 2005 & 2008!

  6. AJStrata says:

    Excellent work. You helped confirm my claim that the CRU data includes raw station data products from 2005 and 2008!

    http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11857

    Cheers, AJStrata

  7. Newminster says:

    “vigilantfish
    Amazing how they can’t seem to schedule conferences in places where weather happens – like Thunder Bay, Ontario.”

    I’ve always suggested Scunthorpe on a wet Thursday in November. I think even Thunder Bay is probably exotic by comparison.
    Mrs Newminster keeps asking why, will all this modern technology, they can’t do it by video-conferencing. She has a point.

    REPLY: [ It is kind of hard to have back room deals and slip envelopes in pockets over the video (I’m sure they would only be putting letters in the envelopes, so as to avoid email issues ;-,) … You and I might call that a “feature” but they would likely not, IMHO… -E.M.Smith ]

  8. Shona says:

    Small carbon footprints are for the “little” people.

  9. VJones says:

    Hey – congrats – you’ve made it – Anthony’s put you on his blogroll! (not sure when, but I’ve only just noticed)

    REPLY: [ I noticed it last night, too, so I think it’s recent. Feels nice. I suspect that the ‘revelation’ that the Japan set as well as the CRU was based on GHCN and that was the common link between all the temperature series that makes them match; coupled with that I had shone a bright light on the thermometer deletion pattern that was the core of the GHCN buggery, that made it ‘of merit’ enough to be notable. -E.M.Smith ]

  10. Al S. says:

    Mr. Smith, I hope this is a good thead to mention Roman M.’s dicovery of an apparent built-in adjustment bias:

    http://statpad.wordpress.com/2009/12/12/ghcn-and-adjustment-trends/

    This was mentioned by a reader on Climateaudit, and also by JeffID on the Air Vent.

    Also, I saw Steve M. quote your “Dig here” phrase, so he’s obviously paying attention to your work.

    I expect there are plenty of angles to work, or lots of different bones to gnaw on.

    Please keep it up!

    REPLY: [ As good a thread as any… FWIW, I hope to promote a new “Public Review Process”. It is well past time for the Citizen Scientist to take back the ownership of truth from the Peer Priesthood. So the more folks who start saying “Dig Here!” and the more folks choose to tell the priests that they need to explain to all of us why they are spending so much time in the back room with the altar boys, the better…

    Yes, I want nothing less than a Reformation to happen… -E.M.Smith. Citizen Scientist and Damn Proud to be “without peer”. ]

  11. waymad says:

    Yes, EMS, if was good enough for the English masses to get access to a Bible in their own language (gasp! but Tyndale and countless others gave their lives for That end), it’s good enough to give the current masses access to the very original readings, to make of them what they will. Your Reformation meme is spot-on.

    Transactional data, please, so we can see the real data for every single data point, and every ‘adjustment’ to it subsequently. A real audit trail.

  12. j ferguson says:

    On the location of meetings:

    I belonged to a sub-committee of a professional society directed to railroad construction. Most of the members worked for for the various railroads here in North America. In those days, money was tight and attendance could be a bit light.

    The best attended meeting in the years I belonged was at Paducah, KY – to see what was then the Illinois Central’s locomotive re-manufacturing shop. A trip to see BN’s shop in Alliance, Nebraska ran a close second.

    You could get the travel and time to places like those because no-one could imagine either of them could be a boondoggle.

    FWIW, Italian Rail has a very nice shop in Mestre. You put your travel request in for Mestre and do not mention that Mestre is on the dry side of Venice.

Comments are closed.