archive-org.com » ORG » C » CLIMATEAUDIT.ORG

Total: 111

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • The Vergano FOI Request « Climate Audit
    long time No one has questioned his work and his recent efforts are very public UVA has nothing of his anymore He got his PhD the year I was born 1948 and left the UVA campus in 1994 Email did not become meaningfully commercial until 1993 and UVA did not have servers for that purpose in 1994 So all they would have would be his written papers and they don t have any it appears Lindzen is subject to FOIA but who wants to take him on Noone has made any credible effort to impeach his work and that s pretty much a no brainer The man is a walking paragon of academic rectitude I have no plans to go down that road If you want to dandy You didn t mention Pat Michaels also from UVA Pat is also a colleague and he suffered from disagreeing with AGW alarmists including some on the UVA campus However he is an open book and no one has seriously suggested any of his work or efforts reflect political science or bad science or anything else He is an important figure in that he is an example of what happens to someone who stands up for their own work that happens to depart from the politically correct script However he had no significant role in development of the hockey stick graph or the defense of that work so he s not central to the history of that period Finally we filed the FOIA for other purposes as well We believe that when the public pays a scientist to do science at a public academic institution they should not only have the opportunity to see all of what they bought but have a legal right to see how that work was done Because Mann has been accused of less than honorable behavior the public has a right to know whether his papers reflect such behavior or exonerate him That purpose does not require examination of others papers That s about all I intend to say on this subject For those of you who want to follow our work take a look over at http www atinstitute org and throw some money in the bucket so we can bring you the stories behind the headlines Rob Posted Jun 4 2011 at 3 26 AM Permalink Dr Schnare thank you for a detailed reply Wegman is one for which we have requested his work GMU gave it to us in an extremely timely manner and we are going over it now If there is anything of significance to the science we ll post it but so far it appears he failed to ensure his students or Said s did their job properly but nothing seems amiss in the science itself Wegman is kind of interesting since he authored the Wegman report to Congress It was never peer reviewed and the only scientific paper that came out of it has just been retracted Besides Wegman has been very extremely secretive about the science in his report failing to answer basic questions such at the ones from Prof Ritson http deepclimate org 2010 10 24 david ritson speaks out even after personal intervention by Congresman Waxman If you found that nothing seems amiss in the science itself then maybe you can answer Prof Ritson s questions Meanwhile Dr Mann who published all his data and methods long ago is on what you call your current list of targets is still being investigated by ATI while you could not find the blatant violation of peer review as well as plagiatism that USA Today found on the Said Wegman et al 2008 publication Is ATI deliberately cherry picking targets or is that just my perception Brandon Shollenberger Posted Jun 4 2011 at 3 48 AM Permalink I m not going to address everything in your post but Michael Mann did not publish all his data and methods long ago Also USA Today did not find plagiarism in anything It was found by John Mashey Deepclimate Rob Posted Jun 4 2011 at 4 24 AM Permalink Michael Mann did not publish all his data and methods long ago http www nature com nature journal v430 n6995 extref nature02478 s1 htm Been there since 2004 USA Today did not find plagiarism in anything It was found by John Mashey Deepclimate Thank you for the correction Indeed Mashey and Deep Climate deserve the credit for uncovering the plagiarism in Said Wegman et al as reported by USA Today USA Today s FOIA request just revealed the blatant violation of the peer review process that ATI failed to detect Brandon Shollenberger Posted Jun 4 2011 at 4 57 AM Permalink I am well aware of that page However it does not include all of Mann s data and methods The fact he posted something does not mean he posted everything For example nobody knows how Mann calculated his confidence intervals in MBH99 You won t find the code for that anywhere online nor will you find any meaningful description of it Making blanket statements without knowing the details you re covering is usually a bad idea Rob Posted Jun 5 2011 at 6 20 AM Permalink Point well taken Indeed claiming that Mann published all his data and methods long ago is overstreching the point There will always be someone who is of the opinion that some data or some methods were not properly explained no matter how many times theconclusions of the paper were confirmed by other data and methods My point of course is that the vast amount of data that Mann did release is in stark contrast to the secret obscurity around the Wegman report Not only did Wegman fail to release any data and methods beyond what we read in the report itself even though he promised to do so he also mentions the Navy s public release process and not federally funded as arguments to NOT release any information on what he actually did in the Wegman report This secrecy and evasiveness by Wegman and unanswed scientific questions about Wegman statistical methods by Ritson the inability to reproduce the red noise hockey sticks other than by copying McIntyre s graphs which are excluded from FOIAs by Canadian law combined with the fact that the Wegman report was itself not even a scientific publication was not peer reviewed was summoned by a politician and presented in a political forum Congress and the report is under investigation for plagiarism by Wegman s own university makes one wonder why anyone is even remotely interested in investigating anything else but the Wegman report Brandon Shollenberger Posted Jun 5 2011 at 8 34 AM Permalink Rob your response is extremely obnoxious In your second sentence you say your comment was overstretching the point No it wasn t Your comment was wrong You said Michael Mann published all his data and methodology He did not You made a blanket claim and it was untrue That s all You then follow this with a very peculiar sentence There are two ways I can see interpreting it The first interpretation holds you are referring to me with the sentence This would have you suggesting the reason I said Mann didn t publish his methodology for calculating confidence intervals is because I have extremely unreasonable expectations for what should be provided This would be a flagrant misrepresentation as Mann s methodology doesn t conform to any sort of standard procedure and it is basically impossible to replicate The second interpretation holds that sentence is simply a bizarre non sequitur In this case it is completely irrelevant and posting it is nonsensical The only thing it would accomplish is to give the implication those questioning Mann s methodology are being unreasonable The result is the same as the first interpretation save that it is by implication rather than by statement Finally the last clause of this sentence makes no sense at all It doesn t matter if a paper s conclusions have been confirmed a thousand times It doesn t matter if everyone in the world agrees with the conclusions Neither has any bearing on whether or not the paper s methodology has been adequately described published Given how much difficulty you cause with issue of simple facts it s hard to imagine having any sort of actual discussion with you It s also worth mentioning while I stuck to discussing a single issue there are many more issues with your response For example in your comparison between Mann and Wegman you make no mention of the events around Mann s publishment This gives the impression Mann was simply being open while Wegman was being secretive Of course that isn t accurate Brandon Shollenberger Posted Jun 5 2011 at 8 44 AM Permalink Oh and in case it wasn t clear enough the methodology for calculating confidence intervals in Mann s work isn t the only thing he failed to publish There has still never been anything published which explain Mann s PC retention numbers This issue is especially problematic as Mann and cohorts have claimed to use one particular rule Preisendorfer s Rule N but that rule could not possibly get the results they got This means Mann isn t simply hiding what he did he is saying things about it which are untrue This distortion has been actively used to mislead people about the controversy around Mann s work Even if one took the worst possible view of Wegman he still wouldn t be actively campaigning to mislead people Rob Posted Jun 4 2011 at 4 55 AM Permalink Wegman is one for which we have requested his work GMU gave it to us in an extremely timely manner Dr Schnare do you have a link to this request that you filed with GMU and GMU s reply David Schnare Posted Jun 4 2011 at 6 29 AM Permalink We don t have it all up yet It s 42 megabytes of material some of which is copyrighted and thus material we are not allowed to post Some of it is graphics that don t have legends but might be of archival interest if they are different from the final published graphs It s a fair amount of stuff and will take us a little bit of time to parse Keep in mind the climate ate emails and files were not a raw dump of records The were selected in some manner We will do some of that too to sort out the dreck from the material that we suspect may be of interest willard Posted Jun 4 2011 at 6 43 AM Permalink Wegman s work does not seem to have the same extent as Mann s documents thefordprefect Posted Jun 4 2011 at 7 26 AM Permalink David Schnare Posted Jun 4 2011 at 6 29 AM Permalink Reply We will do some of that too to sort out the dreck from the material that we suspect may be of interest Might I suggest that removing the DRECK constitutes chery picking and can lead to misinertpretation of the emails All should be published Let others decide what is dreck and what is not dreck thefordprefect Posted Jun 4 2011 at 7 52 AM Permalink Hmm So it will take a little bit of time Yet you are upset by UVA requesting payment for their time to retrieve many times as much data Jeff Alberts Posted Jun 4 2011 at 1 12 PM Permalink The people who would be collecting the data would be getting paid regardless of how many FOI requests came in I d say most institutions pay people specifically for that purpose Obviously they need something to do zinfan94 Posted Jun 5 2011 at 3 21 PM Permalink Jeff Alberts I don t know how many legal cases or lawyers that you have dealt with but in my case my lawyers legal assistants and clerical staff charge their time and work to my charge code It is illegal for them to charge me for work that isn t done for me IMO in the case of FOI requests the work that is done in assembling copying and sending the information should be charged to the person filing the FOI request If the recipient of the FOI request elects to forego charging the person who made the FOI request that is entirely at the discretion of the recipient There should be no free ride for FOI requests Jeff Alberts Posted Jun 7 2011 at 9 55 AM Permalink I think that would depend on the institution I have no experience in the matter but it s clear that the UEA had dedicated people for the job Phil Clarke Posted Jun 5 2011 at 5 57 PM Permalink In the climategate mails which the panel list as one of their references is a mail in which Mann stated that he would notify Wahl of Jones email which he did The obvious conclusion is that the panel were aware of the facts but concluded that they did not amount to credible evidence that Dr Mann had ever engaged in or participated in directly or indirectly any actions with intent to delete conceal or otherwise destroy emails And since no mails were deleted at Mann s request this seems eminently reasonable John M Posted Jun 5 2011 at 6 27 PM Permalink Yes Phil you can stick with that story Forwarding an e mail that said delete your e mails did not participate in directly or indirectly any actions with intent to delete conceal or otherwise destroy emails Next the defintion of is John M Posted Jun 5 2011 at 6 38 PM Permalink Sometimes it seems that climate science and its band of groupies is like the dry cleaning business RomanM Posted Jun 5 2011 at 7 19 PM Permalink The obvious conclusion is that the panel were aware of the facts but concluded that they did not amount to credible evidence that Dr Mann had ever engaged in or participated in directly or indirectly any actions with intent to delete conceal or otherwise destroy emails How dense can you get although I know the answer from reading your earlier comments So Jones request was not made with intent to delete conceal or otherwise destroy emails Jones was just fooling and didn t mean it And when Mann engaged in or participated in directly or indirectly sounds like directly to me by passing on the message without qualification and this actually resulted in the deletion of emails by a third party this shows that there exists no evidence that Mann ever performed any action that he intended to result in the deletion of emails which is entirely germane and responsive to the question the panel was considering Did the panel SEE the email forwarding the request How do YOU know Why did they not explicitly address the issues which would be raised by the existence of the forwarded request Perhaps they did not expect that this fact would emerge to public view The information that Mann forwarded the request only came out after the investigation had been completed If the panel were aware of the real facts then their import should have been explained in the report and the conclusion rendered in that context As it is the panel looks to have been incompetent or worse gober Posted Jun 5 2011 at 7 29 PM Permalink The obvious conclusion is that the panel were aware of the facts Since the panel don t acknowledge that Mann forwarded the request to delete emails it is far from obvious in fact there is nothing to suggest that the panel were aware of the facts One fact which is relevant but again is not noted by the panel so the obvious conclusion is that the panel wasn t aware of it is that Wahl has said that he did in fact delete emails after receiving the email which Mann had forwarded to him which requested him to delete emails Mann and Wahl have both since said that there was no additional comment from Mann with the forwarded email but given that Wahl did in fact act on the email Mann would have a hard time persuading most people that he wasn t part of the process Rob Posted Jun 5 2011 at 5 17 AM Permalink Actually Dr Schnare I was not asking for the 42 Mb of data I was just asking for the link to the request was that a FOIA request that you filed with GMU and GMU s reply to that request Eli Rabett Posted Jun 5 2011 at 8 07 AM Permalink Information released by FOIA is public Anyone can if they wish get a duplicate from the original source Copyright of work by a faculty member belongs to the university unless transferred and there have been cases on this GMU is blowing smoke with its little disclaimer Schnare is blowing smoke about what he can release until and if authorized by the court thefordprefect Posted Jun 4 2011 at 7 22 AM Permalink Thanks for the belated response David Schnare Posted Jun 3 2011 at 10 20 PM Permalink Reply We have asked for the Mann documents because we want to know what was going on at that point in time McIntyre is a private citizen so he is not subject to FOIA Your request to UVA is not limiting itself to just Mann and co workers indeed I should like to point out this inconsistency in your comment and your FOI All documents that constitute or that are in any way related to correspondence messages or emails sent by Dr Michael Mann to or received from any of the following persons x Stephen McIntyre More significantly he has made all his work about as public as possible He is also helping build the history He is part of it too but not in the same way as Mann Your UVA FOI is not just requesting data code documents it is requesting emails and things why One can only assume this is to create another misinterpretation the email type of scandal c f LEA If not then why request such things If it is genuinely requesting the information for background then emails MUST be requested from all others involved in the climate debate Otherwise it is one sided McKitrick like McIntyre is pretty much an open book If someone had found that he appeared to refuse to play nice in the sandbox we d take a look at his work but that doesn t seem to have happened yet How do you know that McKitrick and others did no conspire to discredit invalidly other s documents Wegman is one for which we have requested his work GMU gave it to us in an extremely timely manner Timely manner the 2 fois are completely different kettles of fish One you demand a life history including any doodles made on the way Wegman you ask for very little and get it Singer is a colleague but is an elder statesman as well That s a nice way to say he s been retired a long time No one has questioned his work and his recent efforts are very public Mann s data had been deleted from their system It was not until a disused server was found could any data be retrieved Being OLD does not make you honest Indeed being old makes it more likely that you do not care what happens in the future you ll be dead How can you say no one has questioned his work that is just not true Lindzen is subject to FOIA but who wants to take him on No one wants to take on the Mafia but that does not make it right to allow them to escape punishment You didn t mention Pat Michaels also from UVA he is an open book and no one has seriously suggested any of his work or efforts reflect political science or bad science or anything else I did not mention many people who disagree with AGW That is what the ETC is for He s an open book yes he admitted to being funded 40 by the oil industry Do you not think that perhaps his emails may be of some slight interest of course he would have to be pretty dumb to have used UVA email system but you never know unless you request We believe that when the public pays a scientist to do science at a public academic institution they should not only have the opportunity to see all of what they bought but have a legal right to see how that work was done Fine but do you not just purchase the final report and the data and calculation Do you really purchase his life Because Mann has been accused of less than honorable behavior the public has a right to know whether his papers reflect such behavior or exonerate him Is this accusation a legal one Or is it a blogging one Can I accuse all the anti AGW scientists similarly and cause you to then FOI their lives To me sir it appears you are going after one man for the purpose of discrediting climate science Will you publicly state that you are honestly requesting the information solely to understand the history Will you also publicly state that you have not been financed by parties possibly energy related interested in disproving AGW Punksta Posted Jun 4 2011 at 10 03 AM Permalink Will you also publicly state that you have not been financed by parties possibly energy related interested in disproving AGW Yes indeed he who pays the piper calls the tune In science at least as much as anywhere else Somehow though this issue is only ever raised with AGW skeptics never with AGW believers Probably because close to 100 of believers are financed by an absolutely enormous party with a huge vested interest in proving AGW ie government since this gives it the go ahead to raise taxes expand itself and generally promote a more totalirian society Eli Rabett Posted Jun 5 2011 at 8 26 AM Permalink MIT is a private institution and not subject to FOIA requests thus Lindzen is not subject to FOIA requests nor for that matter is Kerry Emanuel Just a point of information Jeff Alberts Posted Jun 5 2011 at 3 43 PM Permalink Unless Lindzen engaged in projects which were federally funded I don t know if he did Eli Rabett Posted Jun 5 2011 at 10 09 PM Permalink Doesn t matter The only things you could get would be stuff that he sent to the federal sponsor by requesting that from the federal agency You can t for example use FOIA to get internal communications from LockMart or any other federal contractor Universities are federal contractors Richard T Fowler Posted Jun 7 2011 at 9 07 AM Permalink Eli Rabett Jun 5 2011 10 09 PM Doesn t matter I m sorry to disagree but if you are a government contractor and you are holding any information that was generated for the performance of this contract and the contract specifies that that information must have already been made public by the present time and you have not released the information to anyone else then you may be subject to FOIA because being the exclusive holder of what by law is public information you are acting as an agent of government The fact that you are also a private entity or citizen does not matter You may still be subject to FOIA because you are acting as an agent of the contracting agency by being the exclusive holder of the information If on the other hand you gave a copy to whomever the contract said you had to and this individual did not publish it as required by law then you are not subject to FOIA However to refuse to respond to the requestor would seem to me to be an unnecessary risk on your part There could be matters of interpretation in the contract A private individual is not released of the responsibilities of being a government agent by the fact that he doesn t know or doesn t believe he is an agent All that matters is that he is an agent Also if a private corporation is doing government work under contract and getting most of its money from such work then in some sense it is a government agency After all what is a government employee but a contractor He has an employment contract It is the contract which makes him an agent and it is the nature of the work i e government ordered which makes him to be in any sense of the government He himself is a private individual It is his contract for employment that makes him also a member of government in addition to a private individual and thus subject to FOIA RTF J Bowers Posted Jun 4 2011 at 10 11 AM Permalink Steve McIntyre Jun 3 2011 at 6 48 AM Jones had claimed that the confidentiality agreements prohibited CRU from sending the data to a non academic Quite aside from whether there were any confidentiality agreements at all there were no confidentiality agreements that contained this language It was a total fabrication by CRU and the University of East Anglia http badc nerc ac uk data surface met nerc agreement html UK Met Office Meteorological Office UKMO data supplied through NERC Data Centres to bona fide research programmes Conditions of Use Arrangements have been set in place whereby bona fide academic researchers working on agreed NERC endorsed scientific programmes may obtain access on favourable terms to UKMO data and associated software To streamline the process UKMO is providing relevant datasets software wholesale to NERC and NERC will then undertake the subsequent sublicensing and distribution to individual scientists The British Atmospheric Data Centre and the British Oceanographic Data Centre will handle requirements for the atmospheric and oceanographic user communities respectively Requests for UKMO data software should therefore be sent to the appropriate Data Centre and not directly to UKMO UKMO data software so obtained may be used solely for the purpose for which they were supplied They may not be used for any other projects unless specific prior permission has been obtained in writing from the UKMO by a NERC Data Centre Note that this applies even for other bona fide academic work UKMO does not discourage the use of its data for commercial applications but different licensing arrangements and charges will apply Should any commercial prospects emerge subsequent to the original supply of the data the licensing position must be clarified and any appropriate fees negotiated with UKMO before such prospects are followed up Data sets must not be passed on to third parties under any circumstances Any scientist requiring data which happens to have been supplied already to someone else even within the same institute or programme of research must first approach one of the NERC Data Centres who have agreed to maintain records of data users for UKMO Once the project work using the data has been completed copies of the datasets and software held by the end user should be deleted unless permission has been obtained for them to be retained for some alternative use It is to be expected that bona fide academic research using the data will eventually result in scientific publications in the open literature The Data Centres will request details of such publications in due course and if they do not arise UKMO may seek further evidence that this was at least the intention at the outset of the research Scientific papers must give due credit to UKMO either through acknowledgement or if the data provide a significant basis of the work co authorship Any processed derived datasets resulting from the project should be made available to the appropriate NERC Data Centre for licensing transfer to other researchers and the UKMO The copyright intellectual property rights of any data software information or documentation so supplied by UKMO in support of such a programme are retained by the original owner generally the UKMO or its subcontractors UKMO will protect its IPR by legal action if there is misuse of these rights such as the passing on of data to other third parties NERC recognises that some data holdings supplied by UKMO under the arrangements are commercially valuable the recipients of data are under an obligation to respect the terms and conditions of data supply and to have regard to the security of datasets entrusted to them Any infringement whether by deliberate abuse or negligence will be regarded extremely seriously by NERC as endangering Council s own reputation and the integrity of the NERC supported scientific community The introduction of sanctions against individuals or Departments may be considered if breaches occur Now I thought that was also archived in the FOIA zip Spence UK Posted Jun 4 2011 at 11 46 AM Permalink The NERC UKMO agreement you list are commercial terms that UKMO has arbitrarily it appears imposed on their own datasets Unsurprisingly this is meaningless in the context of FOI Government agencies cannot arbitrarily impose conditions like this that prevent the release of data for obvious reasons that it would be too easy to hide behind The only relevant agreements that would prevent the station data being released under FOI would be agreements that the UKMO had placed upon them by external organisations that had supplied the data in question The agreement you have identified there does not fall into this category and is therefore irrelevant to the FOI rejection As an aside whoever wrote up that agreement is astonishingly inept IANAL but even I can spot both unenforcable statements in that agreement and ones which are irrelevant in law trying to negotiate liabilities under tort law in an agreement Good luck with that one in court The test they want to invent seems to be whether or not a paper is likely to be produced at the end of the project no reason why Steve would not have been willing to have this as a goal pal review notwithstanding but then their agreement almost certainly contravenes the data policies of many journals so you couldn t use the data in the paper anyway oops I think we could call this a self defeating agreement or maybe just a crude attempt to try and keep outsiders finding out climate scientists dirty laundry Punksta Posted Jun 4 2011 at 11 53 AM Permalink maybe just a crude attempt to try and keep outsiders finding out climate scientists dirty laundry From the author of Why should I show you my data when I know you ll try and find something wrong with it Surely not J Bowers Posted Jun 4 2011 at 12 52 PM Permalink Government agencies cannot arbitrarily impose conditions like this that prevent the release of data for obvious reasons that it would be too easy to hide behind Crown Copyright says not The UK is not the USA John M Posted Jun 4 2011 at 1 00 PM Permalink Soon to be a moot point assuming they actually will follow their new rules http www nerc ac uk research sites data policy2011 asp J Bowers Posted Jun 5 2011 at 5 19 AM Permalink Which you can probably thank Phil Jones for which he was working on making happen prior to the Climategate emails release Although Jones agrees that the data should be made publicly available he says that it needs to be done in a systematic way He is now working to make the data publicly available online and will post a statement on the CRU website tomorrow to that effect with any existing confidentiality agreements We re trying to make them all available We re consulting with all the meteorological services about 150 members of WMO and will ask them if they are happy to release the data says Jones But getting the all clear from other nations could take several months and there may be objections Some countries don t even have their own data available as they haven t digitized it We have done a lot of that ourselves he says http blogs nature com climatefeedback 2009 08 mcintyre versus jones climate 1 html August 2009 Spence UK Posted Jun 4 2011 at 5 50 PM Permalink Copyright is entirely separate from FOI Information gleaned under FOI can still be subject to copyright which does not prevent information being provided under FOI but may prevent it being republished which may be a breach of copyright Probably the best known example are Ordnance Survey maps These aren t any kind of government secret well not in 2011 anyway you don t even need FOI you can probably wander into a local library in the UK and get any OS map you want But the maps are covered by crown copyright which is rigidly enforced and prevents you from redistributing the maps J Bowers Posted Jun 4 2011 at 8 19 PM Permalink The claim was made that none of the agreements had specific requirements that the data be used for academic purposes The NERC Met Office agreement has such a requirement It was not CRU s decision to make it was NERC s For data you guys contacted the wrong department Jones et al published their methods in their published papers What more do you need John M Posted Jun 4 2011 at 9 22 PM Permalink Jones et al published their methods in their published papers What more do you need The stations he used And don t give us the equivalent of the number s in the phone book someplace J Bowers Posted Jun 5 2011 at 5 10 AM Permalink Roy Spencer replicated Jones work using his own data What s the big deal We just didn t realise in those days how important and controversial this would all become now it would just all be stored on computer Phil Jones has been looking at climate records for a very long time Frankly our data set agrees with his so unless we are all making the same mistake we re not likely to find out anything new from the data anyway http news bbc co uk 1 hi 8694544 stm Spence UK Posted Jun 5 2011 at 5 48 AM Permalink Hmm still not quite getting the whole science thing are you Nobody is saying there are definitely serious problems Of course if we had the data we could know whether there were or not for sure But Phil Jones would rather foster doubt by trying to hide his data for as long as possible behind apparently false claims regarding confidentiality agreements between UEA and its suppliers J Bowers Posted Jun 5 2011 at 6 07 AM Permalink Jones just wishes you d read the published literature and do some science Rote repetition is not scientific replication Spence UK Posted Jun 6 2011 at 2 04 AM Permalink With the presence of complex computer programs and statistical procedures rote replication has been shown to be important for discovering errors in science in fields from medicine to chemistry to physics Your point demonstrates that you know nothing about the conduct of modern science J Bowers Posted Jun 6 2011 at 3 55 AM Permalink Are you saying that rote repetition is an essential part of the scientific method and CRU s results have not been reproduced using original code and independently sourced data Spence UK Posted Jun 5 2011 at 4 01 AM Permalink As explained in my first comment the agreement you pointed to is

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2011/05/28/the-vergano-foi-request/ (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive


  • foi-wegman « Climate Audit
    Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 October 2004 January 2000 NOTICE Click

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/foi-wegman/ (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • virginia « Climate Audit
    Steve Mc Econometric References FAQ 2005 Gridded Data High Resolution Ocean Sediments Hockey Stick Studies Proxy Data Station Data Statistics and R Subscribe to CA Tip Jar Categories Categories Select Category AIT Archiving Nature Science climategate cg2 Data Disclosure and Diligence Peer Review FOIA General Holocene Optimum Hurricane Inquiries Muir Russell IPCC ar5 MBH98 Replication Source Code Spot the Hockey Stick Modeling Hansen Santer UK Met Office Multiproxy Studies Briffa Crowley D Arrigo 2006 Esper et al 2002 Hansen Hegerl 2006 Jones Mann 2003 Jones et al 1998 Juckes et al 2006 Kaufman 2009 Loehle 2007 Loehle 2008 Mann et al 2007 Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/virginia/ (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • NSF on Jones’ Email Destruction Enterprise « Climate Audit
    addressed allegation 2 as follows We next considered the University s second Allegation related to the emails We reviewed the emails and concluded that nothing contained in them evidenced research misconduct within the definition in the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation The University had been provided an extensive volume of emails from the Subject and determined that emails had not been deleted We found no basis to conclude that the emails were evidence of research misconduct or that they pointed to such evidence We concluded that the University adequately addressed its second Allegation Watch the pea here as it is moving quickly either intentionally or unintentionally A casual reader may easily interpret the emails in this OIG finding statement as the Climategate emails But the emails in question are not defined or specified in this paragraph and the OIG report does not directly say that its inspectors examined the Climategate emails In my opinion the needlessly imprecise of the report suggests that the emails referred to here are the ones in the zipfile that Mann provided to Penn State on January 18 2010 I draw this conclusion because elsewhere in their short report they report that they had received documents from Penn State that would include the zipfile We wrote to the University requesting an extensive amount of documentation related to its investigation including copies of all documentation the committees used in their assessments copies of all interview transcripts and specific transcripts or memorandums about certain conversations to which the report referred and from the next sentences in the NSF report The University had been provided an extensive volume of emails from the Subject and determined that emails had not been deleted We found no basis to conclude that the emails were evidence of research misconduct or that they pointed to such evidence I acknowledge that reasonable people can disagree on whether the emails referred to in this sentence were the Climategate emails or the zipfile emails Obviously the emails should have been defined in the OIG report If the NSF limited their review to the emails on the Mann zipfile provided to the Inquiry Committee this is hardly determinative of whether misconduct was evidenced in the Climategate dossier Nor does their analysis report on or address the defects in the Penn State process As noted above Penn State did not consider whether Mann s email to Wahl fell within the terms of their Allegation 2 Nor did they show that they carry out an IT examination of computers to exclude potential concealment of emails via transfer to a thumb drive or otherwise as Briffa had done NSF There are many other issues and defects with the NSF OIG report It is an Oxburghesque 5 pages It is undated and unsigned it is on the letterhead of the Office of Investigations It states that it interviewed various parties but unlike a similar report from the NOAA OIG does not give any information on those interviews I was one of the people interviewed by the NSF Inspector General However I might as well not have been interviewed as the report makes no mention of the issues that we discussed at our meeting More on this another post During the time that I ve been involved in climate the U S NSF has had a pernicious role in enabling and endorsing Climategate conduct This is not a new theme Prior to Climategate from time to time I drew attention to the responsibility of enablers and I think that I was if anything more critical of the bureaucrats for not ensuring compliance than of the grant recipients who abused their compliance responsibilities for example see here here I will try to review their conduct in a future post as well as some of NSF s most questionable conduct occurred in 2003 and 2004 prior to Climate Audit Like this Like Loading Related This entry was written by Steve McIntyre posted on Sep 2 2011 at 2 02 PM filed under Uncategorized and tagged email deletion inspector general nsf oig penn state Bookmark the permalink Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed Neil Wallis and the Poor Phil Article The Stone in Trenberth s Shoe 70 Comments pesadia Posted Sep 2 2011 at 2 30 PM Permalink The question to M Mann was phrased in such a way as to allow him to deny that he deleted any E Mails without addressing the matter of passing on P Jones request that ask others to delete E Mails Thi was a symbiotic enquiry Richard Drake Posted Sep 2 2011 at 2 33 PM Permalink Muir Russell explained to the Parliamentary Committee that if he had done so he would have been asking Jones to admit misconduct I ve just seen that this is the ultimate outworking of the Poor Phil trope We can t get him to admit misconduct it would tip him over the edge Whereas in addiction recovery admitting the fault owning it speaking it out as plainly as possible publicly is the only way back to health Jeff Alberts Posted Sep 2 2011 at 9 12 PM Permalink Perhaps it s more like the US 5th amendment attempting to get someone to incriminate themselves Richard Drake Posted Sep 2 2011 at 9 33 PM Permalink You must be right Russell was pleading the 5th Couple of details a bit strange about that person doing it jurisdiction but at a PR level would be thought to chime well in the US market Team players every one Ron Cram Posted Sep 3 2011 at 7 09 AM Permalink In the US investigators commonly ask suspects if they committed the crime I cannot imagine it is different in the UK Of course suspects have the right to an attorney and they have the right to refuse to answer the question but it is highly unusual for an investigation not to ask the question Also the better question to ask Phil Jones would have been regarding his state of mind when asking people to delete emails The fact he did so is already part of the record The investigation if it was real should also have asked the people who received the emails about their response Is a request to delete emails a common request among researchers What did you think when you received this email Did you delete emails Did you ask others to delete emails Jeff Alberts Posted Sep 3 2011 at 11 44 AM Permalink The difference is law enforcement vs a scientific inquiry Steve you have not phrased this correctly at all here Universities have codes of conducts societies have laws An action can be misconduct without being a crime The difference is between enforcement of laws and enforcement of codes of conduct Jeff Alberts Posted Sep 3 2011 at 1 03 PM Permalink What I meant was that law enforcement can ask a suspect if they ve committed a crime Perhaps the inquiry not being law enforcement isn t able to I don t know if that s the case The question of deleting FOI able documents is possibly a criminally punishable offense so maybe that s why they couldn t ask Richard Drake Posted Sep 3 2011 at 2 16 PM Permalink Of course they can ask It happens all the time All it means is that if the person denies this kind of wrongdoing you take into account that they wouldn t wish to be convicted of a legal offence It s an additional motive for them to be economical with the truth in other words But you re allowed to ask and you re certainly allowed to pass on any information you discover to the police I m only unsure when that becomes a legal obligation KnR Posted Sep 2 2011 at 3 38 PM Permalink Given that reviews allowed CRU and Mann to control the evidenced process and that they could not even see what evidenced there was when the evidenced when it was standing in front of hem shouting I am the evidenced in their ear while wearing a huge T shirt with the words THE EVIDENCED written on it is their failure to ask meaningful questions beyond did you do it any real surprise The allegory of the three wise monkeys how see nothing hear nothing and say nothing could only wrongly be applied in this case becasue of the word wise in the description Jeff Alberts Posted Sep 3 2011 at 11 45 AM Permalink Umm it s evidence not evidenced Dave L Posted Sep 2 2011 at 4 25 PM Permalink How do you prove an e mail has been deleted other than to compare e mail records from an individual computer to a corresponding backup server Don McIlvin Posted Sep 2 2011 at 8 51 PM Permalink An email has a sender and a receiver If you find the message in the receiver s archive and do not in the senders then you can conclude the sender deleted it To say you can conclude the email was not deleted and know of its existence in the receivers archive you have to find it in the senders archive This pertains especially to Mann s reply to Jones on contacting Wahl to delete emails jim benson Posted Sep 2 2011 at 4 29 PM Permalink Steve I know you are not a fan of getting courts involved in matters of science but it appears that this may be the only way of getting at the truth Certainly in NZ this was the only way of enforcing FOIA type requests and progress has been made Similarly U of V gradually peeling away the layers Unfortunately more such actions seem to be required RoyFOMR Posted Sep 2 2011 at 4 43 PM Permalink What I really don t understand is why they they put their future integrity on the line by sticking fingers in their ears after poking out their eyes and continually ignore the evidence that some of their advisers have been economical with the truth snip editorializing on other issues Ross McKitrick Posted Sep 2 2011 at 4 48 PM Permalink The IG report says The University had been provided an extensive volume of emails from the Subject and determined that emails had not been deleted We found no basis to conclude that the emails were evidence of research misconduct or that they pointed to such evidence How did they determine it The IG appears to be relying on the belief that University actually took some investigative action Yet the Penn State report only said Dr Mann has stated that he did not delete emails in response to Dr Jones request Further Dr Mann produced upon request a full archive of his emails in and around the time of the preparation of AR4 The archive contained e mails related to AR4 Penn State said they got the zip folder from Mann on January 18 2010 and interviewed him 4 days later on January 22 There is no mention in the Penn State report that during those 4 days they contacted the university s IT department I would like to know on what basis the IG concluded that the university determined that emails were not deleted It appears that they based their determination on Mann s own assurances which is hardly adequate The fact that there were some AR4 related emails in the folder doesn t settle whether a specific email from Mann to Wahl passing on Jones request to delete AR4 related correspondence had once been in there but had later been deleted KnR Posted Sep 2 2011 at 5 46 PM Permalink Facts is because Wahl let it out of the bag Mann did pass on this e mail and Wahl did attempt to meet this request Manns story changed to he only passed it on and added nothing to it the line he sold Penn State was BS Martin Brumby Posted Sep 4 2011 at 1 57 AM Permalink Perhaps stating the obvious but if Mann did ask Wahl and if Wahl did comply then one might expect that Mann and Wahl would then immediately delete any record both of the request and any response and any action taken And they ve had plenty of time to have compliant IT people in their respective institutions to sanitise back up servers as well Malcolm Shykles Posted Sep 2 2011 at 5 15 PM Permalink The UK Commons Select Committee which investigated The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia is to start a new inquiry which includes Climate Science Readers may be interested in posting some difficult questions Committee announce new inquiry into the Science in the Met Office http www parliament uk business committees committees a z commons select science and technology committee news 110719 new inquiry met office Jeff Id Posted Sep 2 2011 at 6 28 PM Permalink Steve It might be time to renew the old open threads Sea ice was always fun There is a ton of stuff going on and the Roy Spencer editorial resignation deserves some attention at this point http noconsensus wordpress com 2011 09 02 345 4 Snip away of course Adrian Posted Sep 2 2011 at 7 51 PM Permalink Far too much attention in this controversy has been focused on Mann and not enough on the enablers IMHO this is wrong You focus too much on the people who are prepared to whitewash the offense rather than those who might have committed it I use might because it is still not clear that any offense was actually committed other than Jones request to delete emails which is subject to statue of limitations It is pretty certain that Mann passed on the request he said so under English law that would be an offense but it is not clear that he or anybody else acted upon it Your focus is why didn t the reviews ask In the Penn State inquiry they did ask and Mann gave a carefully worded response that they believed without further investigation but you insinuate things beyond the available evidence It is almost certainly morally wrong rather than legally that they failed due diligence but for me the original offense s is are more important That s not to say that the reviews are not subject to criticism Richard Drake Posted Sep 2 2011 at 9 38 PM Permalink Far too much attention in this controversy has been focused on Mann and not enough on the enablers IMHO Steve is right Wrath towards Mann or Jones isn t the answer This is the flip side of Poor Phil Both men were playing the system but the system was not created by them KnR Posted Sep 3 2011 at 4 06 AM Permalink In fact we know the message in what ever form was acted on and we know Mann passed it on Wahl has let that cat out of the bag The argument now is over if Mann added anything to it or what he knew about it His old argument or rather doge he not passed it on has gone Don McIlvin Posted Sep 2 2011 at 8 31 PM Permalink OK let me get this straight It is a fact in evidence that Mann sent an email where he agreed to contact Wahl ASAP about Jones request to delete emails on AR4 The University had been provided an extensive volume of emails from the Subject and determined that emails had not been deleted So clearly they found this email in the zip files We reviewed the emails and concluded that nothing contained in them evidenced research misconduct within the definition in the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation So NFS does not think Mann s agreement to contact Wahl about deleting emails is research misconduct OR Otherwise we have another case of utter buffoonery where in a review of the Penn States inquiry did not actually occur in substance or NFS engaged in a deliberate effort to white wash the matter I don t see any other possibilities If none emerge then anyway you want to have it NFS discredits itself on the matter Steve McIntyre Posted Sep 2 2011 at 9 33 PM Permalink So NFS does not think Mann s agreement to contact Wahl about deleting emails is research misconduct Please read the post to see why this alternative is not adopted by either Penn State or NSF I observed in my post that Penn State took the position that allegation 2 if substantiated would be misconduct NSF endorsed Penn State s analysis Nor do we know that NSF engaged in a deliberate attempt to whitewash the matter It is possible that they were incompetent though I agree that the accumulation of incompetence in the various inquiries is somewhat suspicious Richard Drake Posted Sep 2 2011 at 9 48 PM Permalink I agree that the accumulation of incompetence in the various inquiries is somewhat suspicious Even if it was a coincidence it would embolden anyone who knew they had done wrong or anyone who saw that wrongdoing had occurred but that there was no penalty My hunch is that Jones no longer takes the initiative for example in getting Journal editors who transgress Team standards removed Others have taken over the role but again the system is the same And those within it emboldened Still Willis says the most important thing which is thank you Don McIlvin Posted Sep 2 2011 at 10 46 PM Permalink What got my attention is your statement pertaining to the lack of follow up on the implications of Mann s agreement to further Jones request by contacting Wahl one can only assume that they were negligent in this aspect of their duties Lets recall Penn State inquiry said After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials Foley directly referenced the substance of Jones emails and Mann s reply They are stating they pondered the implications there in to my mind Keep in mind we have well educated individuals charged with an inquiry of misconduct So what is a reasonable conclusion It is true that concluding it was a deliberate white wash is not supported by a smoking gun But I don t think negligence as in it simply didn t occur to them to pursue the matter but should have is what one can only assume Steve McIntyre Posted Sep 2 2011 at 11 13 PM Permalink You re mixing up Jones email to Mann and Mann s acknowledgment with Mann s email to Wahl and Wahl s acknowledgement Yes they referred to the former but they did not state that they examined the latter and it is reasonable to assume that they neglected to do so Examination of Mann s correspondence with Wahl was relevant to allegation 2 and their failure to address this was in my opinion negligent Whether this occurred because it didn t occur to them or for some other reason is irrelevant to this point And yes they may be well educated but they are obviously inexperienced in conducting inquiries or else they wouldn t have botched their procedures quite so thoroughly Don McIlvin Posted Sep 3 2011 at 1 35 AM Permalink One aspect I am trying to get at is that there may well be no email between Wahl and Mann on the matter Mann said he would contact him He could have just called him on the phone If he called him then looking for emails would turn up nothing I haven t seen evidence of email just that some communication apparently occurred with Wahl s admission They may have looked and found nothing and thus let it go Regardless that Mann in his reply back to Jones agreed to contact Wahl should have set off alarm bells and spurred investigation beyond just looking for emails about it Point being they didn t confront Mann on his agreement with Jones to contact Wahl when questioning him They had proof of his agreement Don McIlvin Posted Oct 15 2011 at 5 39 PM Permalink I now realize Wahl has confirmed he was informed by Mann via email on the deletion request Willis Eschenbach Posted Sep 2 2011 at 9 02 PM Permalink I tried to turn up the heat under the NSF with my open letter to Dr Suresh the new incoming head It s depressing to re read the ludicrous attempts to show that the un indicted co conspirators have souls as whitewashed as snow Thank you for your tenacious persistence in all of these matters w John Lieb Posted Sep 3 2011 at 8 07 AM Permalink Willis grammar check time Please stop contributing to the misuse of co conspirators A conspirator is by definition to secretly plan and act with others The co is as redundant as asking UEA for another review of the CRU Jeff Alberts Posted Sep 3 2011 at 12 00 PM Permalink Seconded Don McIlvin Posted Sep 5 2011 at 1 17 PM Permalink Co conspirator is in the dictionary at dictionary com co conspirator co con spir a tor koh kuhn spir uh ter noun a fellow conspirator associate or collaborator in a conspiracy Also co con spir a tor Origin 1860 65 Jeff Alberts Posted Sep 5 2011 at 6 59 PM Permalink Notice it says also conspirator which means conspirator does the job co conspirator is redundant Jeff Alberts Posted Sep 5 2011 at 7 00 PM Permalink Oops never mind mis read it But I still say conspirator does the job Dictionaries also include nucyuler as an alternate pronunciation Mark F Posted Sep 5 2011 at 7 59 PM Permalink The co portion aids in tying the identities of several conspirators into a given conspiracy Willis Eschenbach Posted Sep 3 2011 at 1 44 PM Permalink John Lieb Posted Sep 3 2011 at 8 07 AM Willis grammar check time Please stop contributing to the misuse of co conspirators I fear I am revealing my age Unindicted co conspirators is actually a famous quote from Watergate times where it referred to the fact that Nixon and some others had conspired with those who actually went to trial for their misdeeds As a result Nixon and the others who escaped the indictment were referred to at the time as the unindicted co conspirators Sorry for the confusion my habit of including odd literary and historical allusions sometimes encompasses the obscure However it is also worth noting that unindicted co conspirator is actually a valid and clearly defined legal term If you had taken a couple seconds to Google the term it would have brought up the usual fountain of misinformation which says An unindicted co conspirator or unindicted conspirator is a person or entity that is alleged in an indictment to have engaged in conspiracy but who is not charged in the same indictment Prosecutors choose to name persons as unindicted co conspirators for a variety of reasons including grants of immunity pragmatic considerations and evidentiary concerns The United States Attorneys Manual generally recommends against naming unindicted co conspirators although their use is not generally prohibited by law or policy 1 Some commentators have raised due process concerns over the use of unindicted co conspirators 2 Although there have been few cases on the subject the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed these concerns in United States v Briggs 3 So John and Jeff next time you think it s grammar check time before uncapping your electronic pen you might actually you know check the grammar w Ross McKitrick Posted Sep 3 2011 at 6 25 PM Permalink I think the correct term in this context is unindicted coauthor HaroldW Posted Sep 2 2011 at 9 21 PM Permalink Don McIlvin Let s assume with you that they looked for and found the email which Mann forwarded to Wahl concerning deleting emails What in that email do you think would constitute misconduct within the definition in the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation Here is the definition Research misconduct means fabrication falsification or plagiarism in proposing or performing research funded by NSF reviewing research proposals submitted to NSF or in reporting research results funded by NSF This is followed by definitions of fabrication falsification and plagiarism Narrowly framed this way and the OIG should be interpreting its regulations precisely it s not even a close call The requested deletions related to IPCC work not NSF work and further don t fit under any of the 3 categories I m not saying that this excuses the Penn State inquiry investigation but I don t have a beef with the NSF conclusion as superficial as it may have been Steve McIntyre Posted Sep 2 2011 at 9 40 PM Permalink Penn State s conclusions were based on the Penn State definition NOT the NSF definition NSF stated We concluded that the University adequately addressed its second Allegation This endorsement is an endorsement of Penn State s finding on its definition Don McIlvin Posted Sep 2 2011 at 9 57 PM Permalink I believe Holland s FIOA was part of a line of inquiry as to whether the IPCC AR4 contained final content that went around the vetting process The IPCC AR4 content was presented as vetted So one can state this is a conspiracy to destroy evidence pertaining to whether the IPCC AR4 vetting process was subverted Whether Mann forwarded an email to Wahl or called him on the phone is not important as to whether Mann engaged in misconduct He agreed to Jones request to get him to delete the AR4 emails One could argue that is grounds of conspiracy in a legal parallel So the argument is they deceptively lend the name of the NFS in exoneration on the grounds of jurisdiction without stating that as the basis I can t conclude this is not a problem that discredits the NFS mpaul Posted Sep 2 2011 at 10 14 PM Permalink All of the investigations conducted by academic groups have concluded that the conduct was perfectly consistent with the accepted standards of conduct in the climate science community The question that has not been examined by any of the investigation is whether the conduct was illegal Regarding Climategate emails The UK Information Commissioner said The prima facie evidence from the published e mails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information It is hard to imagine more cogent prima facie evidence Its time for an inquiry that examines the legality of the conduct I really couldn t care less whether a bunch of academics think this stuff is all okey dokey Steve McIntyre Posted Sep 2 2011 at 10 23 PM Permalink The academics did not describe the conduct as it was Instead they misdescribed the conduct and then made findings unsupported by the evidence a different problem than your complaint I disagree with advocating legal remedies as opposed to demanding that academic institutions police themselves properly Legality of Jones enterprise was considered in the UK but there is a short statute of limitations Muir Russell did not consider the matter from the point of view of the U of East Anglia misconduct policy which does not have a six month statute of limitations It is entirely possible that Jones email destruction enterprise constituted academic misconduct even if the statute of limitations prevented criminal prosecution This was not addressed in the UK Similarly in the US the issue seems to be academic misconduct rather than criminality The issue there is not that they failed to open an academic misconduct inquiry but that they made findings that were unsupported by the evidence And that the NSF failed to identify obvious defects I discourage readers from trying to ratchet things up into something that they aren t stan Posted Sep 3 2011 at 6 03 AM Permalink The important remedy is in the court of public opinion No matter how much legalistic parsing and paring we get from the institutions to allow certain researchers to avoid sanctions the ultimate impact is that trust is forfeited Fewer and fewer people believe the researchers or the institutions Sturm und drang is presently raging in the political sphere because politicians have the temerity to question the pronouncements of the scientific anointed But those in high dudgeon have to come to grips with reality this is what happens when scientists and institutions debase the coin of the realm Steve s right to focus on the institutions There will always be bad apples It has to be the institutions which police the integrity of the process And if they don t the public will end up doing it for them If if the public has to do it it will be ugly and sloppy Many babies will get flushed with the bath water But that s the inevitable result when the people charged with upholding integrity fail to do their jobs Science will suffer and the clowns will point the finger at the public for reacting But the blame will belong to those who allowed the process to degrade into a circus Richard Drake Posted Sep 3 2011 at 7 46 AM Permalink Spot on I still say it s a good time to be alive Luboš Motl Posted Sep 3 2011 at 3 31 AM Permalink Well Jones et al were not afraid of deleting documents or asking to delete documents because they re in charge of the system and they re in possession of the higher ends that justify any means So they re not afraid of anything like that what they possess ed are superior powers That s something we know damn well from communism If someone had the task to protect communism whose existence was pretty much put above other laws he didn t have to care about some minor offenses such as destruction of evidence against him The societies today are not controlled by climate alarmism in the same totalitarian way as the Soviet bloc was controlled by communism but the universities surely are The universities are arguably plagued by much more authoritative a version of climate alarmism than what the universities have ever seen during communism So of course that the main goalkeepers of the transcending ideas have even less reasons to be fear of punishment when it comes to minor offenses such as destruction of evidence liquidation of fine yet inconvenient papers and journals or firing of innocent yet inconvenient people As long as people get away with outrageous propositions of the kind that climate change is a top important problem the mankind is obliged to wrestle with the common understanding of justice will have a lower priority than the ideology which is why illegal and unethical behavior will continue Peter Whale Posted Sep 3 2011 at 5 06 AM Permalink Lubos Motl says As long as people get away with outrageous propositions of the kind that climate change is a top important problem the mankind is obliged to wrestle with the common understanding of justice will have a lower priority than the ideology which is why illegal and unethical behavior will continue If illegal activities take place I agree with Jim Benson in must end up in court Salamano Posted Sep 3 2011 at 5 49 AM Permalink Did they examine Mann s email to Wahl forwarding Jones deletion request Did Mann add any endorsement or caveat If so what Did Wahl acknowledge Mann s email If so what did he say in his acknowledgement Even the most elementary investigation ought to have obtained this material and reported on it However the Inquiry Committee did not report that they did so and one can only assume that they were negligent in this aspect of their duties Is it possible that the investigative committee could have actually done this particular investigating and reported their conclusions without reporting all the innards Are they required to report provide all the innards I guess I m thinking along the lines of a closed door session or Judge s chambers meeting where only the results are pronounced without any of the deliberation Is it possible that reasonable people can also assume they were not negligent in this exercise even if unhelpful to those who want to analyse the analysis Geoff Sherrington Posted Sep 3 2011 at 8 02 AM Permalink In Australia from time to time there is a judgement by our High Court that invites one to read the transcript An event happened last week The precision of the wording is impressive as are the logic processes The transcript is not an ordinary set of words it is quickly recognisable as set apart For reasons of professionalism displayed by legal people in high office I am one who would prefer to see an overarching inquiry headed by a respected Judge In past times I helped formulate a case before the High Court against our Government We lost Perhaps 10 8 dollars was at stake However my respect for the High Court did not lessen We lost because Parliament amended a critical Act at the last moment My main reservations about a judicial inquiry are conditioned by that interference ianl8888 Posted Sep 3 2011 at 9 02 PM Permalink My main reservations about a judicial inquiry are conditioned by that interference Agreed Geoff The likelihood of an inquiry untrammelled by initial political interference is 0 sam Posted Sep 3 2011 at 11 06 AM Permalink If the misconduct procedure of the University of East Anglia is not subject to time limitations is there anything to prevent a reader here from making a complaint that would involve the investigation of deleting e mails in response to a FOIA inquiry It is possible perhaps likely that the university might claim that the matter had already been investigated Would any record of such an investigation be open to a FOIA request From my limited knowledge of such things there is usually a catch all act of misconduct bringing the University into disrepute in many university procedures This has the advantage of not being bound by time Until the act complained about is investigated and if necessary acted upon the university one might argue will continue to be brought into disrepute It is possible that particular acts of scientific misconduct such as hiding the decline could yet be pursued Yes the Muir Russell found the hiding to be misleading However as Steve has pointed out none of the spaghetti graphs used by IPCC states that there has been hiding the decline in the particular graph If hiding the decline has already been found to be misleading in one situation it can hardly fail to be misleading in the use of the spaghetti graphs The real misconduct and bringing of the university into disrepute lies in the failure of UEA and IPCC scientists following the Russell finding to correct the misleading impression given by the spaghetti graphs I wonder if it might also be possible to pursue the use of bristlecones or rather the failure to re run reconstructions without the use of bristlecones using university procedures Steve McIntyre Posted Sep 3 2011 at 11 55 AM Permalink The UEA policy is here http www uea ac uk polopoly fs 1 161269 Research Misconduct Procedure pdf They might well claim that the Muir Russell inquiry was an inquiry within these terms but it wasn t Bristlecones are more problematic with the Mann style reconstructions CRU reconstructions are more influenced by Yamal This has been discussed in previous posts Chris S Posted Sep 3 2011 at 12 05 PM Permalink Have I got this right Mann was able to produce the e mails in a handy zip file therefore they were found not to

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2011/09/02/nsf-on-jones-email-destruction-enterprise/ (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • email-deletion « Climate Audit
    et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 October 2004 January 2000 NOTICE Click on

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/email-deletion/ (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • inspector-general « Climate Audit
    2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 October 2004 January 2000 NOTICE

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/inspector-general/ (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • oig « Climate Audit
    the US Department of Commerce re NOAA is the first report to date in which the investigators made any effort to crosscheck evidence from Climategate correspondents against independent sources It does not list the emails that it investigated By Steve McIntyre Posted in Uncategorized Also tagged inspector noaa solomon Comments 56 New Light on Delete Any Emails Feb 23 2011 5 32 PM New light today on Phil Jones notorious request that Mann Briffa Wahl and Ammann delete any emails By Steve McIntyre Posted in Uncategorized Also tagged delete inspector noaa penn state Comments 117 Tip Jar The Tip Jar is working again via a temporary location Pages About Blog Rules and Road Map CA Assistant CA blog setup Contact Steve Mc Econometric References FAQ 2005 Gridded Data High Resolution Ocean Sediments Hockey Stick Studies Proxy Data Station Data Statistics and R Subscribe to CA Tip Jar Categories Categories Select Category AIT Archiving Nature Science climategate cg2 Data Disclosure and Diligence Peer Review FOIA General Holocene Optimum Hurricane Inquiries Muir Russell IPCC ar5 MBH98 Replication Source Code Spot the Hockey Stick Modeling Hansen Santer UK Met Office Multiproxy Studies Briffa Crowley D Arrigo 2006 Esper et al 2002 Hansen Hegerl 2006 Jones Mann 2003 Jones et al 1998 Juckes et al 2006 Kaufman 2009 Loehle 2007 Loehle 2008 Mann et al 2007 Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/oig/ (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • penn state « Climate Audit
    asked why did Jones take such a large professional risk by asking other scientists to destroy documents A correlative question By Steve McIntyre Posted in Uncategorized Also tagged email deletion inspector general nsf oig Comments 77 What Did Penn State Know Mar 10 2011 10 32 AM In an interview yesterday Mann told Eli Kintisch of Science see here that it has been known for a year and half that he forwarded Jones delete request to Wahl If Mann s claim is true and I do not believe it to be true then this raises serious questions about statements in the Penn State By Steve McIntyre Posted in Uncategorized Also tagged wahl Comments 162 New Light on Delete Any Emails Feb 23 2011 5 32 PM New light today on Phil Jones notorious request that Mann Briffa Wahl and Ammann delete any emails By Steve McIntyre Posted in Uncategorized Also tagged delete inspector noaa oig Comments 117 Penn State Report Released Jul 1 2010 2 59 PM Online here By Steve McIntyre Posted in Uncategorized Also tagged penn state Comments 184 Older posts Tip Jar The Tip Jar is working again via a temporary location Pages About Blog Rules and Road Map CA Assistant CA blog setup Contact Steve Mc Econometric References FAQ 2005 Gridded Data High Resolution Ocean Sediments Hockey Stick Studies Proxy Data Station Data Statistics and R Subscribe to CA Tip Jar Categories Categories Select Category AIT Archiving Nature Science climategate cg2 Data Disclosure and Diligence Peer Review FOIA General Holocene Optimum Hurricane Inquiries Muir Russell IPCC ar5 MBH98 Replication Source Code Spot the Hockey Stick Modeling Hansen Santer UK Met Office Multiproxy Studies Briffa Crowley D Arrigo 2006 Esper et al 2002 Hansen Hegerl 2006 Jones Mann 2003 Jones et al 1998 Juckes et al 2006 Kaufman 2009 Loehle 2007 Loehle 2008 Mann et al 2007 Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/penn-state/ (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive



  •